So much is happening locally and statewide that this gutty little blog sometimes forgets to take a look at the national election, which seems to be stagnant. But sometimes something comes along that can really illuminate things for our readership — and today is one of those lucky days. Read this piece.
Before discussing it, I want to remind people of one thing: Barack Obama was not supposed to win the Presidency in 2008. This is mostly because he was not supposed to win the nomination. Hillary Clinton was, sooner or later, supposed to crush him. And one big reason that he snuck out ahead of her, withstood her challenge on Super Tuesday, and managed to grind out a war of attrition through to the convention was this:
His team read and understood the delegate selection rules and hers didn’t.
I don’t primarily blame Hillary for this. It is to be expected that one’s strategists would read the rules and realize that choosing delegates by Congressional district — which gives Democrats in South OC and Republicans in East LA power in choosing delegates disproportionate to their numbers — generates a very different strategy than does a system in which they are awarded proportionately by state. Obama won the nomination, even when sometimes apparently underperforming in primaries, because he understood that under the rules getting the support of Democrats in places like Mission Viejo was more important than getting the support of Democrats in places like Santa Ana. Fewer Democrats in the district mean fewer people to convince in order to win a delegate.
I love this cartogram created by my friend Jeffrey Albertson, which shows each state according its number of electoral votes while still retaining the basic spacial relations of the states (except for AK and HI)
Something similar is happening right now in the national election, though it’s much less subtle. Obama is playing to win the Electoral College, regardless of whether he wins the popular vote. You could look around California and barely notice that there’s a Presidential Election going on, except for fundraisers. But in the 14 or so “swing states” that could go either way, the fighting over the airwaves in already well underway.
That’s where Obama is concentrating his forces. And that’s where he’s going up in the polls, even as he declines elsewhere.
The margin favoring Romney is growing in red states — where Romney is a sure bet to win anyway. Obama does not much care about that. The margin favoring Obama is shrinking a bit in blue states. Obama does not care much about that yet. What he’s learning in the swing states is what sort of advertising works — and citizens of those states will see plenty of it before November 6. The trends in those states where the winner is virtually certain are dragging down Obama in the national polls — yet he’s not falling! That is because they are being offset by his margin increasing in the swing states. Those are the figures that matter — and, as the article linked above suggests, that’s where he’s doing well.
“Campaign like you’re three points behind,” that’s how the saying goes. And one should do so, of course — we certainly have plenty to do here. But: Democrats who watch the national numbers showing a close race should not panic. Republicans who watch the national numbers should not get complacent — although, if they do, I don’t mind too much.
After all, getting complacent what happened to Hillary Clinton in the early months of 2008 — and we all know how that turned out.
Has the president had any wins during the primary or just a bunch of free passes?
Other Democrats have been on the ballot in many states, if that’s what you’re asking, but no one who would be considered more than a protest candidate.
At least one of those “protest votes” was measured significantly against BHO – and that in a state he had won in 2008. Other similar dem protest votes were significant and do not bode well for Barry in 2012.
You’re talking about Indiana? He’s OK with not winning Indiana. Anyway, the election is in just over three months; we’ll see.
The whole electoral delegate system to me in a struggle. I am sure that it once had a place in our nation but it does not seem to be effective in today’s day and age. Each person who casts a vote should have that vote count the same…regardless of whether you live in CA or OH.
Throw in the freakin Senate while you’re at it. What’s up with Wyoming or Alaska having equal votes to California or Texas? That is archaic shit from back when slave states wanted equal representation with free states. (Maybe it still is.)
Do you know that equal representation of the states in the Senate is the one part of the constitution that cannot be amended? You would literally have to pass an amendment allowing you to amend it, hope that the Supreme Court agreed that that did not eliminate the entire Constitution, and then amend it.
Abolishing the Senate would be easier, as 0=0.
I agree with you. I think that most Democrats agree with you. I think that most Republicans do not.
GD, assuming you are replying to my post…Not sure how it is a D, R, L, or I issue. It may fall that more of one party supports something just mathematically but it hopefully is not a “party issue”. Just seems to make sense to my simple, non-political mind, that each vote should count the same when electing the POTUS.
I’m not saying that it should be partisan. I’m saying that when you look at surveys regarding who favors what, my recollection is that it turns out to be.
Why is it that way…if you know. The only thing I can really think of would be that the last time that a popular vote has gone the other way compared to the electoral vote was Bush/Gore (at least I believe so). It just does not seem to be a party issue to me and so it could just be “it just so happens” that R’s see more positive to it than the D’s for some reason which fails my thinking.
Go back to Mapp v. Ohio and look at the reactions to the initial implementation of “one person, one vote.” It’s pretty consistent — at least if you take the people who used to be conservative Democrats (in the South) and reassign them to the Republican Party and the people who used to be Republicans (mostly parts of the Northeast) and reassign them to the Democratic Party.
GD…367 U.S. 643 (1961) Mapp vs Ohio; I believe that is a 4th Amendment/search warrant/exclusionary-rule type case isn’t it?
Silly me, I misspelled “Baker v. Carr.” Sorry! (Baker was from the following year, both during a time when great decisions from the Warren Court were coming fast and furious.) But Mapp is good too!
I will have to read up on Baker…I like Mapp though. I could just envision a lady (Mrs Mapp) taking their “search warrant” and shoving down her bosom and the cops trying to get it back from her while she is running around her house…kind of like the scene from the Pirates ride at DLand. I should not find it funny as it was such a landmark case for exclusionary evidence rules, but I do.
Presidential elections don’t have to be this way.
The National Popular Vote bill would 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. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of ‘battleground’ states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in more than 3/4ths of the states that now are just ‘spectators’ and ignored after the primaries.
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.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
By state (electoral college votes), by political affiliation, support for a national popular vote in recent polls has been:
Alaska (3)- 78% among (Democrats), 66% among (Republicans), 70% among Nonpartisan voters, 82% among Alaska Independent Party voters, and 69% among others.
Arkansas (6)- 88% (D), 71% (R), and 79% (Independents).
Arizona – 60% (R), 79% (D), and 57% others
California (55)– 76% (D), 61% (R), and 74% (I)
Colorado (9)- 79% (D), 56% (R), and 70% (I).
Connecticut (7)- 80% (D), 67% (R), and 71% others
Delaware (3)- 79% (D), 69% (R), and 76% (I)
District of Columbia (3)- 80% (D), 48% (R), and 74% of (I)
Idaho(4) – 84% (D), 75% (R), and 75% others
Florida (29)- 88% (D), 68% (R), and 76% others
Idaho — 75% (R), 84% (D), and 75% others
Iowa (6)- 82% (D), 63% (R), and 77% others
Kentucky (8)- 88% (D), 71% (R), and 70% (I)
Maine (4) – 85% (D), 70% (R), and 73% others
Massachusetts (11)- 86% (D), 54% (R), and 68% others
Michigan (16)- 78% (D), 68% (R), and 73% (I)
Minnesota (10)- 84% (D), 69% (R), and 68% others
Mississippi (6)- 79% (D), 75% (R), and 75% Others
Montana – 67% (R), 80% (D), and 70% others
Nebraska (5)- 79% (D), 70% (R), and 75% Others
Nevada (5)- 80% (D), 66% (R), and 68% Others
New Hampshire (4)- 80% (D), 57% (R), and 69% (I)
New Mexico (5)- 84% (D), 64% (R), and 68% (I)
New York (29) – 86% (D), 66% (R), 78% Independence Party members, 50% Conservative Party members, 100% Working Families Party members, and 70% Others
North Carolina (15)- 75% liberal (D), 78% moderate (D), 76% conservative (D), 89% liberal (R), 62% moderate (R) , 70% conservative (R), and 80% (I)
Ohio (18)- 81% (D), 65% (R), and 61% Others
Oklahoma (7)- 84% (D), 75% (R), and 75% others
Oregon (7)- 82% (D), 70% (R), and 72% (I)
Pennsylvania (20)- 87% (D), 68% (R), and 76% (I)
Rhode Island (4)- 86% liberal (D), 85% moderate (D), 60% conservative (D), 71% liberal (R), 63% moderate (R), 35% conservative (R), and 78% (I),
South Carolina – 64% (R), 81% (D), and 68% others
South Dakota (3)- 84% (D), 67% (R), and 75% others
Utah (6)- 82% (D), 66% (R), and 75% others
Vermont (3)- 86% (D); 61% (R), and 74% Others
Virginia (13)- 79% liberal (D), 86% moderate (D), 79% conservative (D), 76% liberal (R), 63% moderate (R), and 54% conservative (R), and 79% Others
Washington (12)- 88% (D), 65% (R), and 73% others
West Virginia (5)- 87% (D), 75% (R), and 73% others
Wisconsin (10)- 81% (D), 63% (R), and 67% (I)
Wyoming (3) – 77% (D), 66% (R), and 72% (I)
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes – 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc
TJLocalSA, do you believe in the one man (woman) one vote?
How do you feel about term limits? and its retriction on the voter’s rights to vote?
Hi Cook…yes, I believe that one voter should equal one vote for the POTUS. I just don’t see the benefit of the electoral college system…with all things though, I always reserve the right to get smarter on any issue. There is plenty that I don’t have knowledge of, so maybe this is one of those areas.
On term limits, I do see the logic behind them. I feel that new thoughts and minds have some benefits. I often see those benefits in multiple different settings outside of politics (i.e. business, sports, etc…). The right person can also have lasting impact regardless how long they have been in office. I see both sides of term limits. Having said that, I am likely more in favor of no term limits. Keeping the power with the voter is the ultimate term limit- letting all of us decide each and every time we go to the booth. Unfortunately, with the piss poor voter turn out we generally have in elections, the power is only with those who vote and not with those who could vote for one reason or another.
What are your feelings (i.e. your same questions back at you…)?
I am not in favor of term limits, especially in the local and state levels.
Same page…now if we could just get people to vote for the best candidate on the issues and capabilities instead of just the one that they know the name of because they have the best name recognition (i.e. an inherent incumbent advantage).
My favorite is North and South Dakota – four f*ing senators. As Bill Maher said, why not have one state and call it “Dakota.”
“.. R’s see more positive to it than the D’s for some reason which fails my thinking.”
Less populated rural (red) states tend to be more conservative and therefore more Reublican.
Speaking of the Olympics – how about that Michael Phelps?
But remember he didn’t win all those medals, someone else did. After all, he swam in public pools, built by state employees using tax dollars. He got training from the USOC, and ate food grown by the Department of Agriculture and subsidized by the US Treasury. He used public streets and bridges and every breath he takes while swimming is regulated by the EPA. He should play fair and share his medals with people like me, who can barely swim a lick.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/03/most-famous-words-obama-presidency/#ixzz22WuFRvqo
Yes, he won those medals, but it is in some respects a national accomplishment because we did help him do so. You don’t get a share of the medals but you are entitled to a share of the pride.
And that’s what it comes down to – what is a “fair share” – who decides that? I feel that tax rates are too high for everyone – now.
Who decides that, Skally? Well, I suppose WE do, collectively and indirectly, when we vote for a politician who promises to tax us all less or one who admits they will tax some of us more.
Some promises of course you have to take with a grain of salt.
In that case, you would disapprove of Romney’s tax and other fiscal policies, which would increase the burden on all but the wealthy. So that’s progress!
National pride…for sure. Did I help him win it though? He should take all the credit on that- or at least I should not take any of that credit while maybe his coaches, trainers, parents, etc… sure can.
I guess indirectly we all will get a share of the “winnings” though when he pays his taxes…the tax man comes for them.
I don’t know his life story. But like all Americans I’m sure he’s benefited greatly from growing up and working in this great country with all of its perks that we’ve all paid for.
So yes, we all share in a little bit of the glory. Didn’t you see us cheering?
And all of us have paid, and continue to pay, enough – no tax hikes for any of us.
You are correct that he benefited…benefited the same as the guy who decided not work as hard as he did in order to earn those medals. That is where he is entitled to the glory and credit…he did more and succeeded in doing it.
toto………..Posted August 4, 2012 at 10:00 PM
Presidential elections don’t have to be this way.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
How would you solve the problem of the voters voting at diff times? Voters on the west coast and the islands and the far east of Alaska would all be disenfranchised by the time the voters in Texas and the Midwest voted and the race is called with certainty.