Let me start by saying that I am not Todd Akin's biggest fan. I did not vote for him in the Republican primary because I felt like he would have trouble getting elected due to his very outspoken conservative beliefs (remember when comparing federal student loans to stage four cancer was the most controversial thing Akin had said?). I am always one to follow William F. Buckley's advice to Republican primary voters: Vote for the most conservative candidate who can win. I felt all three of the leading Republican candidates were conservative, but I felt either Sarah Steelman or John Brunner would have a better chance of winning the Senate seat for the GOP.
After Mr. Akin made his now infamous "legitimate rape" comment, I felt very strongly that he should leave the Senate race and allow a more electable conservative like Steelman or Brunner to take up the Republican mantle against Senator Claire McCaskill. I still feel that Akin made a very selfish decision to stay in the race, a decision that could very well cost the Republican Party control of the U.S. Senate when all is said and done.
That said, I will still vote for Todd Akin when I go to the polls on November 6. Why would I vote for someone who I clearly believe made a mistake by staying in the race? My answer is simple: Claire McCaskill. Claire McCaskill was swept into office in 2006, which was a terrible election year for Republicans who were hampered by the unpopularity of the Iraq War. McCaskill has been a key ally of President Barack Obama throughout all the political battles of the last four years. While McCaskill likes to play the "moderate" card, she has supported some of the largest and most egregious expansions of federal government power in our nation's history. She was a key vote in support of the health care legislation which is now universally known as Obamacare. She has voted to confirm liberal, activist judges who continue to chip away at our constitution rights from their perches on federal courts. She has very rarely strayed from the Democrat party line, unless her vote was unnecessary to the powers that be.
If her liberal record is not enough to convince a majority of Missourians to oppose her, perhaps this week's developments are. A major news story broke earlier this week saying that Senator McCaskill's husband, a wealthy nursing home owner, has been using his wife's connections to make deals in the backrooms of the United States Senate. There have been whisperings and allegations of the crony capitalism involved with Senator McCaskill' and her husband throughout her political career, but this recent story connects all the dots. Claire McCaskill is abusing her office and abusing the trust of the people of Missouri to advance the financial interests of her husband.
Todd Akin said a dumb thing. He has apologized for his comment and I believe he has learned from the experience. Claire McCaskill is abusing her office to garner political favors for her husband. To me, there is no comparison. McCaskill's behavior is infinitely worse and should disqualify her from holding the office of U.S. Senator.
Current polling seems to favor McCaskill, but it will be very interesting to see if this recent news story (which appeared as a headline on the popular Drudge Report) will have the impact that it should on this election.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
2012 Electoral Scorecard: Why We Should All Move to Ohio
I have spent the better part of the day crunching some numbers on the Presidential Election. I have analyzed data from five well-respected, non-partisan political sites: Cook Political Report, Rothenberg Political Report, Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball, Electoral-Vote.com & Real Clear Politics. Here is what the race boils down to at this point in time.
Romney has 75 electoral votes completely locked down.
*Alabama (9)
*Arkansas (6)
*Kansas (6) - yes, Kansas has proved to be good for something!
*Louisiana (8)
*Nebraska (4 - Nebraska apportions three of its electoral votes based on the individual results in its three congressional districts. Romney is likely to garner all 5 of Nebraska's electoral votes, but Nebraska's third congressional district voted for Obama in 2008 and is not completely locked down for Romney)
*Utah (6)
*Wyoming (3)
*Alaska (3)
*Idaho (4)
*Kentucky (8)
*Mississippi (6)
*Oklahoma (7)
*West Virginia (3)
None of these should come as a surprise. What this teaches us is that we need more people to move to the South.
Obama has 142 electoral votes completely locked down.
*California (55)
*Washington DC (3)
*Delaware (3)
*Hawaii (4)
*Illinois (20)
*Maryland (10)
*Massachusetts (11)
*New York (29)
*Rhode Island (4)
*Vermont (3)
Again, no surprises here. These are states that today wouldn't vote for a Republican in a Presidential Election under virtually any circumstances.
Romney has a very strong advantage in the competition for an additional 112 electoral votes. These are states he must win in order to win the election. The good news is that currently it is difficult to imagine a set of circumstances in which he would lose any of these states.
*North Dakota (3)
*Nebraska 3rd district (1)
*South Dakota (3)
*Texas (38)
*South Carolina (9)
*Tennessee (11)
*Georgia (16)
*Indiana (11)
*Missouri (10)
*Arizona (11)
Obama has a "strong" advantage in several other states amounting to 94 additional electoral votes. Most of these states are locked in for Obama, but a couple near of the bottom of the list have tightened in recent days and could potentially go to Romney. If any states on this list are red on Election Day, we are virtually guaranteed to have a President Romney in January.
*Washington (12)
*New Jersey (14)
*Connecticut (7)
*New Mexico (5)
*Maine (4 - Maine divides its electoral votes identically to Nebraska so there is potential for splitting there)
*Oregon (7)
*Minnesota (10)
*Michigan (16)
*Pennsylvania (20)
Assuming none of these states switch in the next couple weeks, that leaves us with Obama leading Romney 237-187 with 110 electoral votes outstanding. This means Romney will need to win 82 of these electoral votes to win the election. Obama only needs to win 33. If we have a tie at 269-269 (which is possible), Romney will win and the Electoral College will likely be done away with forever (can you imagine the controversy!?).
*North Carolina (15)
*Florida (29)
*Virginia (13)
*Colorado (9)
*New Hampshire (4)
*Iowa (6)
*Nevada (6)
*Wisconsin (10)
*Ohio (18)
If the Election were held today, I feel pretty confident that Romney would win North Carolina, Florida & Virginia. The others are very difficult to feel strongly about for either side. My gut tells me that Wisconsin, Nevada, Iowa & New Hampshire are going to be difficult for Romney, but Paul Ryan's presence on the ticket may allow the GOP ticket to carry Wisconsin.
What this all comes to (once again) is that it is going to be quite difficult, though not impossible, for Romney to win the Electoral College without carrying Ohio. No Republican has won the Presidency without carrying Ohio since basically the birth of the GOP. Ohio is such an interesting state politically and I will analyze the state in greater depth in a future blog post.
Despite losing two electoral votes since the last election, Ohio is once again front and center in the battle for the White House.
Romney has 75 electoral votes completely locked down.
*Alabama (9)
*Arkansas (6)
*Kansas (6) - yes, Kansas has proved to be good for something!
*Louisiana (8)
*Nebraska (4 - Nebraska apportions three of its electoral votes based on the individual results in its three congressional districts. Romney is likely to garner all 5 of Nebraska's electoral votes, but Nebraska's third congressional district voted for Obama in 2008 and is not completely locked down for Romney)
*Utah (6)
*Wyoming (3)
*Alaska (3)
*Idaho (4)
*Kentucky (8)
*Mississippi (6)
*Oklahoma (7)
*West Virginia (3)
None of these should come as a surprise. What this teaches us is that we need more people to move to the South.
Obama has 142 electoral votes completely locked down.
*California (55)
*Washington DC (3)
*Delaware (3)
*Hawaii (4)
*Illinois (20)
*Maryland (10)
*Massachusetts (11)
*New York (29)
*Rhode Island (4)
*Vermont (3)
Again, no surprises here. These are states that today wouldn't vote for a Republican in a Presidential Election under virtually any circumstances.
Romney has a very strong advantage in the competition for an additional 112 electoral votes. These are states he must win in order to win the election. The good news is that currently it is difficult to imagine a set of circumstances in which he would lose any of these states.
*North Dakota (3)
*Nebraska 3rd district (1)
*South Dakota (3)
*Texas (38)
*South Carolina (9)
*Tennessee (11)
*Georgia (16)
*Indiana (11)
*Missouri (10)
*Arizona (11)
Obama has a "strong" advantage in several other states amounting to 94 additional electoral votes. Most of these states are locked in for Obama, but a couple near of the bottom of the list have tightened in recent days and could potentially go to Romney. If any states on this list are red on Election Day, we are virtually guaranteed to have a President Romney in January.
*Washington (12)
*New Jersey (14)
*Connecticut (7)
*New Mexico (5)
*Maine (4 - Maine divides its electoral votes identically to Nebraska so there is potential for splitting there)
*Oregon (7)
*Minnesota (10)
*Michigan (16)
*Pennsylvania (20)
Assuming none of these states switch in the next couple weeks, that leaves us with Obama leading Romney 237-187 with 110 electoral votes outstanding. This means Romney will need to win 82 of these electoral votes to win the election. Obama only needs to win 33. If we have a tie at 269-269 (which is possible), Romney will win and the Electoral College will likely be done away with forever (can you imagine the controversy!?).
*North Carolina (15)
*Florida (29)
*Virginia (13)
*Colorado (9)
*New Hampshire (4)
*Iowa (6)
*Nevada (6)
*Wisconsin (10)
*Ohio (18)
If the Election were held today, I feel pretty confident that Romney would win North Carolina, Florida & Virginia. The others are very difficult to feel strongly about for either side. My gut tells me that Wisconsin, Nevada, Iowa & New Hampshire are going to be difficult for Romney, but Paul Ryan's presence on the ticket may allow the GOP ticket to carry Wisconsin.
What this all comes to (once again) is that it is going to be quite difficult, though not impossible, for Romney to win the Electoral College without carrying Ohio. No Republican has won the Presidency without carrying Ohio since basically the birth of the GOP. Ohio is such an interesting state politically and I will analyze the state in greater depth in a future blog post.
Despite losing two electoral votes since the last election, Ohio is once again front and center in the battle for the White House.
Can Romney Win the Electoral College?
This is really the only question that matters with regard to the Presidential election, right? We can bask (or fret) over the latest national poll numbers. We can debate whether Gallup's likely voter model is flawed. In the end, what matters is whether Governor Romney or President Obama reaches 270 (or for Romney 269 because he would win the Presidency if a 269-269 electoral college tie resulted due to Republicans having control of more state congressional delegations) electoral votes.
If you had asked me this question prior to the first Presidential debate, I would have glumly told you that I didn't say a Romney path to victory. I felt that the American electorate had been blinded by Obama again and that the Romney campaign's difficulties had basically handed the President an undeserved second term. The first Presidential debate was truly the type of game-changing debate that we have not seen in American politics in recent years (maybe going back to Kennedy-Nixon 1960). The debate presented Governor Romney as a legitimate Presidential presence and dispelled many of the negative perceptions about Romney that the Obama campaign had allowed to form the election narrative for August & September.
This is not to say that we can all book our tickets to the Romney inauguration in January 2013. When we get into the nitty gritty state-by-state poll numbers this election is exceptionally close, but with momentum clearly in Romney's corner and (what I think will be the difference) a large enthusiasm gap in Romney's favor. As is always the case in our electoral system, a close election will be decided by a handful of voters in several "swing" states. Because of this, I will spend significant time on this blog dissecting a few states and will basically ignore the remaining states.
What we know as of this writing is that several Obama 2008 states are clearly in Romney's corner this year such as Indiana and North Carolina. Recently polling data also seems to indicate that Virginia and Florida are looking more favorable to Romney than was initially anticipated pre-debates. That said, Romney cannot win the Electoral College without not only winning these four states, but also carrying some combination of Ohio, Colorado, New Hampshire, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Iowa. Recent polling shows very close races in all of these states. The fact that Romney is now competitive in both Pennsylvania and Michigan is good news for the GOP as well. I don't expect either of these states to turn red, but if either does the election is over for Obama.
The bottom line is that this election is shaping up to be very similar to 2000 & 2004, elections where either party could have prevailed given a change in the preferences of a few thousand voters in a certain swing state (Florida 2000/Ohio 2004). One prediction I am comfortable making right now is that we will have a long night of election watching on November 6 before we know who will be President in 2013.
If you had asked me this question prior to the first Presidential debate, I would have glumly told you that I didn't say a Romney path to victory. I felt that the American electorate had been blinded by Obama again and that the Romney campaign's difficulties had basically handed the President an undeserved second term. The first Presidential debate was truly the type of game-changing debate that we have not seen in American politics in recent years (maybe going back to Kennedy-Nixon 1960). The debate presented Governor Romney as a legitimate Presidential presence and dispelled many of the negative perceptions about Romney that the Obama campaign had allowed to form the election narrative for August & September.
This is not to say that we can all book our tickets to the Romney inauguration in January 2013. When we get into the nitty gritty state-by-state poll numbers this election is exceptionally close, but with momentum clearly in Romney's corner and (what I think will be the difference) a large enthusiasm gap in Romney's favor. As is always the case in our electoral system, a close election will be decided by a handful of voters in several "swing" states. Because of this, I will spend significant time on this blog dissecting a few states and will basically ignore the remaining states.
What we know as of this writing is that several Obama 2008 states are clearly in Romney's corner this year such as Indiana and North Carolina. Recently polling data also seems to indicate that Virginia and Florida are looking more favorable to Romney than was initially anticipated pre-debates. That said, Romney cannot win the Electoral College without not only winning these four states, but also carrying some combination of Ohio, Colorado, New Hampshire, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Iowa. Recent polling shows very close races in all of these states. The fact that Romney is now competitive in both Pennsylvania and Michigan is good news for the GOP as well. I don't expect either of these states to turn red, but if either does the election is over for Obama.
The bottom line is that this election is shaping up to be very similar to 2000 & 2004, elections where either party could have prevailed given a change in the preferences of a few thousand voters in a certain swing state (Florida 2000/Ohio 2004). One prediction I am comfortable making right now is that we will have a long night of election watching on November 6 before we know who will be President in 2013.
Who Will Win the House in 2012?
While the Presidential election and Senate races get much of the press, there are 435 races for the U.S. House of Representatives taking place on November 6 as well. While the majority of these races are foregone conclusions at this point in time, 97 of the races are competitive or potentially competitive come Election Day.
According to my analysis using data from the Cook Political
Report (cookpolitical.com), the Rothenberg Political Report (rothenbergpoliticalreport.com), Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball (centerforpolitics.org/crystalball), CQ Politics (cqpolitics.com), and Real Clear Politics (realclearpolitics.com) there are 186 seats in which the Republican candidate is virtually guaranteed to win the House election and 152 seats in which the Democrat candidate is virtually guaranteed to win. The current composition of the House is 240 Republicans, 190 Democrats, and 5 vacancies.
For Republicans to control the House of Representatives in 2013, they will need to win a minimum of 32 of the 97 competitive house seats. For the Democrats to control of the House in January they will need to win a minimum of 66 of the competitive house seats. For this reason, most experts believe that regardless of the outcome of the Presidential election, the Republicans will have little difficulty holding on to control of the House.
Based on my current data analysis, Republicans are heavily favored to win 32 of these 97 competitive seats, which would mean that they would hang on to control of the House even if they only won these seats in which they currently have a strong advantage. Republicans have a slight edge in another 19 seats and 6 of the seats are absolute toss-ups. Democrats have a slight advantage in 20 seats and the a strong advantage in another 20 seats. This results in a very uphill climb for House Democrats to come anywhere near a House majority in the 113th Congress.
This analysis is not to say that Democrats cannot gain House seats on November 6; they can and probably will. Assuming Republicans win all seats in which they currently have an advantage, Democrats win all seats in which they currently have an advantage, and the absolute toss-ups are split equally the Republicans will enter the 113th Congress with 240 members and the Democrats will have 195 members. This would be a slight gain of 3 seats for the Democrats.
However, given the historic losses suffered by House Democrats in 2010, a "slight gain" is really a loss. Republicans, who won House elections in many places they had not won in many decades (or in some cases ever) should have been more vulnerable given the large number of freshmen incumbents in their ranks. Democrats, however, have been unable to make many elections competitive and in some cases shored up potentially weak incumbents through the redistricting process.
This election cycle has some added intrigue due to the fact that congressional districts have been reapportioned based on the 2010 census. This has resulted in a larger-than-normal amount of turnover in many state congressional delegations, but has not been a net gain to one party as Republican-led redistricting efforts in North Carolina, Georgia, Ohio, and elsewhere have been offset by Democrat-led redistricting efforts in Illinois, California, Florida and a few other states.
In the days to come, I will take a look at some of the more interesting House races and analyze them in more detail as well as taking a look at the race for the Senate (spoiler alert: it doesn't look as good for the Republicans) and, of course, a look at the Presidential election.
According to my analysis using data from the Cook Political
Report (cookpolitical.com), the Rothenberg Political Report (rothenbergpoliticalreport.com), Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball (centerforpolitics.org/crystalball), CQ Politics (cqpolitics.com), and Real Clear Politics (realclearpolitics.com) there are 186 seats in which the Republican candidate is virtually guaranteed to win the House election and 152 seats in which the Democrat candidate is virtually guaranteed to win. The current composition of the House is 240 Republicans, 190 Democrats, and 5 vacancies.
For Republicans to control the House of Representatives in 2013, they will need to win a minimum of 32 of the 97 competitive house seats. For the Democrats to control of the House in January they will need to win a minimum of 66 of the competitive house seats. For this reason, most experts believe that regardless of the outcome of the Presidential election, the Republicans will have little difficulty holding on to control of the House.
Based on my current data analysis, Republicans are heavily favored to win 32 of these 97 competitive seats, which would mean that they would hang on to control of the House even if they only won these seats in which they currently have a strong advantage. Republicans have a slight edge in another 19 seats and 6 of the seats are absolute toss-ups. Democrats have a slight advantage in 20 seats and the a strong advantage in another 20 seats. This results in a very uphill climb for House Democrats to come anywhere near a House majority in the 113th Congress.
This analysis is not to say that Democrats cannot gain House seats on November 6; they can and probably will. Assuming Republicans win all seats in which they currently have an advantage, Democrats win all seats in which they currently have an advantage, and the absolute toss-ups are split equally the Republicans will enter the 113th Congress with 240 members and the Democrats will have 195 members. This would be a slight gain of 3 seats for the Democrats.
However, given the historic losses suffered by House Democrats in 2010, a "slight gain" is really a loss. Republicans, who won House elections in many places they had not won in many decades (or in some cases ever) should have been more vulnerable given the large number of freshmen incumbents in their ranks. Democrats, however, have been unable to make many elections competitive and in some cases shored up potentially weak incumbents through the redistricting process.
This election cycle has some added intrigue due to the fact that congressional districts have been reapportioned based on the 2010 census. This has resulted in a larger-than-normal amount of turnover in many state congressional delegations, but has not been a net gain to one party as Republican-led redistricting efforts in North Carolina, Georgia, Ohio, and elsewhere have been offset by Democrat-led redistricting efforts in Illinois, California, Florida and a few other states.
In the days to come, I will take a look at some of the more interesting House races and analyze them in more detail as well as taking a look at the race for the Senate (spoiler alert: it doesn't look as good for the Republicans) and, of course, a look at the Presidential election.
2012 Election Update
Can you believe we are only 16 days away from the 2012 election? It has really come quickly in some ways...and extremely slowly in other ways. I am going to try to boost my blog content in the next couple of weeks as we reach the most critical days leading up to November 6.
There are a plethora of interesting Senate & House races that I have been following very closely as well as that little Presidential election that has been getting so much publicity! Hope you will check the site over the next couple of weeks.
There are a plethora of interesting Senate & House races that I have been following very closely as well as that little Presidential election that has been getting so much publicity! Hope you will check the site over the next couple of weeks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)