POTUS 2012: Another split decision
The tight 2012 presidential race is shaping up as the second split decision in the last three contests, but just the third time ever in which the winner of the popular vote is defeated in the Electoral College. But this year, neither of those divergent results will be all that close.
Recent national polls have trended towards Republican challenger Mitt Romney. I see that trend continuing through election day, with Romney winning the popular vote by as much as 7 million votes and five percentage points, 52% to 47%. Romney will also lead in electoral votes when the local news airs (11:00 eastern, 10:00 central), with leads in most of the uncalled swing states, but awaiting results from traditionally late reporting urban areas. But as the sun comes up the following morning, the urban vote in most of those states will push President Barack Obama over the top, giving him a comfortable majority of electoral votes, possibly as much as 313 to 222.
This historic result will be the largest popular vote deficit of any Electoral College winner, both by percentage points and raw vote. Until now, Rutherford B. Hayes' 3-point popular vote deficit to Democrat Samuel Tilden in 1876 was the largest such deficit by far. Both Benjamin Harrison (1888) and George W. Bush (2000) lost the popular vote by less than a percentage point. Bush's 543,000 vote deficit is the current raw vote record.
How can the popular and electoral votes diverge so much? Because of the President's conscious campaign strategy to devote his resources almost exclusively to nine "swing" states. He will win most of them, including those with the most votes (maybe not Florida, but he won't need Florida). Obama will also win 18 "blue" states that he is taking for granted, but by smaller margins than in 2008. And he will lose all 23 states that he has written off, including Indiana (which he won in 2008) and Missouri (which he lost by a fraction of a percent). In most of the 41 states where virtually no Obama campaign resources are devoted, Obama will significantly underperform his 2008 results.
Romney's surge in popular votes will come primarily from the 41 neglected states, but all but Indiana will nevertheless deliver their electoral votes the same way they did in 2008. Obama will do well enough in enough of the contested swing states to pull out a comfortable Electoral College win.
There shouldn't be any whining from Republicans about this loss. George W. Bush noted when accepting his own minority victory in 2000 that he had campaigned to win electoral votes, and that he would have campaigned differently if the popular vote had determined the outcome. That is exactly what President Obama has done in this campaign, and it is working.
With the veto pen securely in the President's hand for four more years, the Affordable Care Act is assured of implementation, regardless of who controls Congress.
Recent national polls have trended towards Republican challenger Mitt Romney. I see that trend continuing through election day, with Romney winning the popular vote by as much as 7 million votes and five percentage points, 52% to 47%. Romney will also lead in electoral votes when the local news airs (11:00 eastern, 10:00 central), with leads in most of the uncalled swing states, but awaiting results from traditionally late reporting urban areas. But as the sun comes up the following morning, the urban vote in most of those states will push President Barack Obama over the top, giving him a comfortable majority of electoral votes, possibly as much as 313 to 222.
This historic result will be the largest popular vote deficit of any Electoral College winner, both by percentage points and raw vote. Until now, Rutherford B. Hayes' 3-point popular vote deficit to Democrat Samuel Tilden in 1876 was the largest such deficit by far. Both Benjamin Harrison (1888) and George W. Bush (2000) lost the popular vote by less than a percentage point. Bush's 543,000 vote deficit is the current raw vote record.
How can the popular and electoral votes diverge so much? Because of the President's conscious campaign strategy to devote his resources almost exclusively to nine "swing" states. He will win most of them, including those with the most votes (maybe not Florida, but he won't need Florida). Obama will also win 18 "blue" states that he is taking for granted, but by smaller margins than in 2008. And he will lose all 23 states that he has written off, including Indiana (which he won in 2008) and Missouri (which he lost by a fraction of a percent). In most of the 41 states where virtually no Obama campaign resources are devoted, Obama will significantly underperform his 2008 results.
Romney's surge in popular votes will come primarily from the 41 neglected states, but all but Indiana will nevertheless deliver their electoral votes the same way they did in 2008. Obama will do well enough in enough of the contested swing states to pull out a comfortable Electoral College win.
There shouldn't be any whining from Republicans about this loss. George W. Bush noted when accepting his own minority victory in 2000 that he had campaigned to win electoral votes, and that he would have campaigned differently if the popular vote had determined the outcome. That is exactly what President Obama has done in this campaign, and it is working.
With the veto pen securely in the President's hand for four more years, the Affordable Care Act is assured of implementation, regardless of who controls Congress.
posted by St. Louis Oracle | 10/26/2012 09:48:00 PM
|
0 comments
