Posts Tagged ‘2012’

Election Prediction 2012: President, Senate and House

Posted on: November 5th, 2012 by Kyle. | No Comments

The 2012 election cycle has been a long and costly battle against two very different ideologies. By this time tomorrow night we may very well know who the next president will be until January 2017. The most likely outcome based on polling, trends and historical state allegiances portends well for President Obama, Senate Democrats and House Republicans.

President

As I posted on Saturday, President Obama is a heavy favorite to win the Electoral College and thus the presidency. Nothing has changed in the two days since then to disrupt the status quo of the race. In fact, the numbers that have come in since then reinforce a narrow win for the incumbent. Based on the polling average from Pollster.com and on the trends of the race, I predict President Obama to be a 2-3 point favorite in the popular vote and a 332 to 206 favorite in the Electoral College.

For a deeper explanation of where these projections come from I would suggest reading Saturday’s post. The bottom line is that President Obama has a solid base of support in Democratic-leaning states along with consistent leads in a number of swing states (most notably Ohio). Obama has momentum in Florida and Colorado that should be enough to put him over the top in those states on Tuesday night. The map is below:

Senate

After losing six Senate seats in the 2010 election, Democrats looked likely to repeat a decline in their ranks in 2012. It was almost universally accepted that Democrats would lose control of the Senate, given the grim map where they had to defend 23 seats to only 10 for the GOP. A number of incumbent Democratic senators decided to retire in red states, making the situation that much worse for Democrats.

Against all odds, Democrats look poised to actually gain seats after this year’s election. A number of strategic blunders on the part of Republican primary voters, gaffes by candidates and surprisingly strong recruitment by the Democrats has led to a situation where I am predicting a net gain of 2 seats from 53 to 55.

Nothing underlines the Republican Party’s collapse in this year’s Senate races more than Todd Akin, who suggested that the female body had a way to “shut down” an unwanted pregnancy that resulted from rape and thus abortion in such cases was unnecessary. National Republicans pressured Akin to get out of the race but he stayed in and will likely cost their party a seat that they were otherwise likely to pick up from Senator Claire McCaskill. McCaskill is a first-term senator with middling approval ratings who won in the wave election of 2006 with less than 50% of the vote.

Republicans threw away another senate seat when they knocked off Indiana’s long-time senator, Dick Lugar, in a Republican primary. It is still not clear what exactly Lugar did to invoke the wrath of Tea Party conservatives – Lugar remains a stalwart conservative – but their choice of Richard Mourdock has not gone over well in Indiana. Mourdock’s Akin-like comment that God “intends” for pregnancy to occur from rape essentially guaranteed that Joe Donnelly would pick up the seat for Democrats.

A third candidate, Olympia Snowe, decided to retire rather than face the will of far-right Tea Party primary voters. Independent Angus King, who is heavily favored to win Tuesday, will caucus with Democrats. These three seats alone, which were otherwise shoe-ins for the Republican candidates, are the difference between Republicans gaining and losing seats. Democrats will at worst retain their majority on Tuesday and at best gain two seats.

House

Democrats hoped that the gain of over 60 seats for Republicans in 2010 would mean that the tide would fall back and result in a net gain of at least the 25 seats that are needed for Dems to win a majority. It does not appear to be in the cards. The average of polls shows the national popular vote for House races to be neck-and-neck. Gerrymandering by Republican legislatures in a number of large states, including Michigan, Ohio, North Carolina and Pennsylvania, make reaching the necessary 25 seats unlikely. Republicans will retain their majority but Democrats will gain between 5 and 10 seats.

Conclusion

In 2008, I accurately projected the outcome in every state except three: Florida and Indiana (which went for Obama) and Missouri (which went for McCain). Ultimately, I was too conservative in my view of Obama’s performance in 2008. In 2010, I correctly projected the outcome of the country’s Senate races. We’ll see how 2012 turns out in the days to come as ballots are cast and votes are counted. I’ll analyze the results in a new post when all of the data is in. Until then, go out and vote!

*Edit*

A previous version accidentally colored West Virginia blue. The estimated Electoral Vote total of 332 is unaffected by this error.

Bill Clinton Lights the DNC on Fire

Posted on: September 6th, 2012 by Kyle. | No Comments

President Bill Clinton gave a well-received speech to the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina that will probably go down as one of the best speeches of a former president at a national convention. The speech went a bit long at around an hour in length – certainly no one ever accused President Clinton of being succinct – but he gave an impassioned defense of President Obama, a critique of the Republican misinformation machine, and the case for four more years.

Photo by Robyn Beck of AFP

While Michelle Obama’s job last night was to reach female voters, President Clinton was tasked with shoring up undecided and apathetic working class white voters. Perhaps he more than any politician in either party has credibility on economic issues. The 1990s saw the largest economic expansion in American history. That made his job all the more important to remind voters that four years ago when President Bush was in office the economy was bleeding nearly a million jobs a month. This year it has been adding around 150,000 jobs a month on average. Private sector job growth over the past two years alone has been robust at over 4.5 million.

His job wasn’t only to defend President Obama’s record on the economy. It was also to argue that Mitt Romney’s economic plan is just a rehash of the same trickle down economics that got the country into the Great Recession in the first place. He then mocked the fact that the Republicans are proposing $4 trillion in tax cuts in their plan to cut the deficit. As President Clinton pointed out, it goes against the laws of arithmetic. You would either have to cut spending to the bone, putting at risk everything from national defense to Medicare, or you would simply just explode the deficit.

Then President Clinton ripped into Republican claims that President Obama stole from Medicare. As the former president pointed out, Paul Ryan’s own budget would keep the cuts in waste, fraud and abuse that Obama signed into law. But by repealing Obamacare in its entirety, as Romney and Ryan have proposed, they would undo the savings and extended life of Medicare, as well as the thousands of dollars in savings that seniors now enjoy thanks to the closing of the donut hole for prescription drugs.

The only negative – if you want to call it that – of Michelle Obama and President Clinton’s speeches are that it will be tough for President Obama to upstage either of them. Both the First Lady and former president put on dazzling performances that will rally the Democratic base and persuade moderate voters to choose the Democratic Party over the extremist positions of the Republican Party. If President Obama can manage to do just that, you might as well book your tickets for the inauguration.

Ann Romney Speaks at RNC

Posted on: August 29th, 2012 by Kyle. | No Comments

Ann Romney did about as good of a job as the campaign could ask of her. The mission was to humanize Mitt Romney — a seemingly impossible task. While I think her warmness went over well with the crowd and audience at home, it is a stark contrast to the candidate himself who comes off as cold, remote and calculating. She might have succeeded at getting independent women to give Mitt a second look, but that’s about it. He’s going to have to do it on his own on Thursday night if he wants a chance in November. People won’t vote for someone that they don’t like.

Rick Santorum’s Path to the Nomination

Posted on: March 14th, 2012 by Kyle. | No Comments

Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum accomplished two important wins in the Deep South on Tuesday – one in Alabama and the other in Mississippi – that denied front-runner Mitt Romney the opportunity to finish up the nasty GOP primary fight. While Romney’s aides publicly state that it would take an “act of God” for Santorum to win the nomination, it is actually more plausible than they would have you believe.

With Newt Gingrich’s second place finishes in Alabama and Mississippi – states that he recently said that he must win – his campaign’s path forward it unclear at best. Indeed it would take an act of God for Gingrich to become the Republican nominee. The same cannot be said of Santorum, though, who despite trailing Romney by roughly 200 delegates could quickly catch up to him at the convention. Consider this scenario:

The Republicans enter their convention in Tampa without a candidate holding a clear majority of delegates – a requirement for winning the nomination. The first round of ballots is indecisive. After this point delegates bound to Romney or any other candidate could vote for whomever they please.

Now imagine that Gingrich drops out of the race. Where do his delegates go? Will these conservative, largely Southern delegates go with a former moderate governor from Massachusetts? Highly doubtful, unless Gingrich is enticed by another prize: a slot on the ticket.

This is where Santorum can find a path without entering the convention with a majority of delegates. He wins Gingrich’s endorsement early on, ensuring that his supporters will carry Santorum to victory in places like Texas. Then Santorum cuts a deal with Gingrich giving him a VP slot in exchange for his hundred plus delegates. Adding the delegates won so far by Gingrich and Santorum puts him within striking distance of Romney. Hardly an act of God.

Recapping the GOP Primary

Posted on: February 26th, 2012 by Kyle. | No Comments

New York Magazine‘s John Heilemann has a great piece this week on the GOP primary race thus far. He writes about the rightward drift of the Republican Party, the struggles that “front-runner” Mitt Romney has had to curry favor with the Tea Party base, and Santorum’s rise as his primary conservative challenger. In Heilemann’s own words:

That Mitt Romney finds himself so imperiled by Rick Santorum—Rick Santorum!—is just the latest in a series of jaw-dropping developments in what has been the most volatile, unpredictable, and just plain wackadoodle Republican-nomination contest ever. Part of the explanation lies in Romney’s lameness as a candidate, in Santorum’s strength, and in the sudden efflorescence of social issues in what was supposed to be an all-economy-all-the-time affair. But even more important have been the seismic changes within the Republican Party.

The schism is very real. The establishment of the Republican Party – comprised of lifelong politicians, Wall Street execs, the Chamber of Commerce and others – usually wins out. Their picks included George H. W. Bush in 88 and 92, Bob Dole in 96, George W. Bush in 00 and 04, and John McCain in 08. Each of them won their primary fights – even after tough challenges for Bush Sr. and John McCain. That may not be the case this year with an insurgent Tea Party. While Rick Santorum is very much a Washington insider – serving in both the House of Representatives and Senate until his defeat in 2006 – he is a nightmare candidate for the establishment due to his ardently conservative views on social issues that will alienate independent voters, but attract the very conservative voters that Mitt Romney needs in order to win the nomination.

Mitch Daniels Backs Indiana Right-to-Work Bill

Posted on: December 28th, 2011 by Kyle. | No Comments

Indiana’s Republican Governor Mitch Daniels says that a top priority for the upcoming 2012 legislative session will be a right-to-work bill that would cripple unions and lower wages by making dues voluntary. “When Indiana gets a chance to compete for new business, we win two-thirds of the time,” Daniels told a South Bend reporter. “Unfortunately a quarter to half the time, we don’t get to the table because business is only interested in a state with this protection. We just need to have those shots on goal because we know we’ll capture more than our fair share if we do.”

The facts are not on his side. Right-to-work states like South Carolina have a considerably higher unemployment rate than Indiana (10.5% vs. 9%) and their workers have lower wages. Daniels should get his talking points straight before he makes false and misleading claims about the jobs situation in Indiana. Unions are not the problem, Indiana Republicans’ willingness to sacrifice wages and workplace safety is the problem.

Daniels goes on to claim that, “I’d be completely opposed to this if it affected the right to organize. But every right-to-work state has unions and some of them have a higher percentage of union members than Indiana does. I’d be completely against anything that reduced the right to organize. This is only about whether you have to pay the dues or don’t.”

I’ll give the governor credit, he knows how to weasel out of his positions – at least rhetorically – even while still maintaining them. The bill has nothing to do with jobs and everything to do with killing unions. Right-to-work is a way to drain a union’s resources. If you can benefit from a union and not have to pay for it then who would offer up their dues? It’s called free-riding. For a party that would love to see all resistance to corporate power crushed, right-to-work makes a good deal of sense.

GOP House Schedules 108 Workdays in 2012

Posted on: October 27th, 2011 by Kyle. | No Comments

The GOP Congress is doing what no other employer in America would ever allow:

Republican leaders in the House of Representatives have unveiled a plan that would allow the GOP Congress to have one week off for every two weeks of work. While relatively common to have fewer workdays during an election year, the 2012 schedule would only have the House convene for a miniscule 108 days. That’s down from 127 days during the last election year in 2010 when Democrats controlled the House. Democrats in the House quickly decried the light schedule as rancorous debates have led to few legislative results in the current session.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said in a Thursday press conference that “the American people deserve better… it really makes you wonder about the schedule, but particularly at this time, when the American people are feeling so much pain.” Democratic House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer complained that “the House has struggled to get even its most basic work done.”

The schedule calls for only six work days in January, eight days in April and three days in August. After returning on September 10 from their August recess, the House will only be in session for 13 days before the elections in November 2012. To make sure that lawmakers do not have to wake up too early, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has said that he will schedule votes no earlier than 1 p.m. and that they will end before 7 p.m.

Voters of all political stripes should be outraged by this lack of respect for the public. Can you think of any other place than Congress where you get 7 days off for every 14 days of work? Working class Americans wouldn’t know what to do with all of that free time even if they had it. They wish that they could have a single vacation in a year. Of course the Congressional vacation time is just in-between fundraisers and campaigning.

I would recommend passing a bill that would require both chambers of Congress to remain in full session for at least 3/4 of the year instead of the 1/3 that is planned. That gives them plenty of time to do their campaigning without devoting their entire schedule to it. Just like everyone else that doesn’t show up for work, members that miss the mandatory sessions would be docked pay. Of course it would never pass the GOP Congress because it makes too much sense.

Americans Strongly Support Dumping Electoral College

Posted on: October 24th, 2011 by Kyle. | No Comments

The outdated Electoral College system should be replaced by the popular vote according to American adults. A Gallup poll highlights the strong support for a constitutional amendment to replace the Electoral College:

Americans support scrapping the Electoral College in favor of the popular vote by a wide margin. A Gallup poll shows that 62 percent of U.S. adults would support amending the U.S. Constitution to replace the current system, which has allowed popular vote losers to move into the White House. Only 35 percent support keeping the current system.

The Founding Fathers designed it to limit the influence that a majority of voters could have on an election and ensure that smaller states would have larger voice. The number of electors to the Electoral College is determined based on a state’s number of House members plus their two members of the Senate. Small states like Wyoming are greatly over-represented in the Electoral College, where there are 187,875 voters in the state for every electoral vote. Large states like California are disadvantaged, where there are over 675,000 voters per electoral vote.

This should not be terribly surprising. The Electoral College is viewed as an overly complicated, archaic system by many voters. It has resulted in the election of three presidents that lost the popular vote, but won the Electoral College. Despite its sketchy history and undemocratic design, the fact that a third of voters still support it particularly Republicans, is disappointing. Passing a constitutional amendment would be difficult, if not impossible, due to the fact that it would require smaller states to support it. There is, however, an alternative:

Due to the difficulty of passing a constitutional amendment, states that support a popular vote system have sought a work-around within the current Electoral College. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would award each states’ electoral votes to the national popular vote winner. The state compact would only take effect once enough states pass the law to reach 270 electoral votes, the minimum number required to be elected president.

You can read all about the Electoral College’s history, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact and more at Gather News.

All U.S. Troops Out of Iraq by End of 2011

Posted on: October 15th, 2011 by Kyle. | No Comments

This is great news and long overdue:

The Iraq War, which started in March 2003, will officially end on January 1, 2012 after nearly nine years of fighting. Withdrawal from the country was a central promise of President Obama’s campaign in 2008. The Associated Press report, based on anonymous administration officials due to the sensitivity of the topic, states that there will be no American presence in Iraq beyond the first of the year.

The withdrawal agreement signed in 2008 called for the complete withdrawal of American forces on December 31, 2011. When it was signed it was expected that the agreement would be modified to accommodate an extension if needed. The United States government had negotiated with the Iraqi government to allow for several thousand troops to stay behind to train Iraqi forces. It appears that will no longer be the case.

You can read my entire article on Gather.com.

Run or Not, Chris Christie Won’t Be Republican Nominee

Posted on: October 3rd, 2011 by Kyle. | No Comments

The media darling of the minute is New Jersey governor Chris Christie. You can’t turn on a television news program without a “journalist” talk about whether or not Christie will get in the race, even with no new information. The man known for his grumpy demeanor is unlikely to win a lot of Republican votes if he decides to pull the gun and run. While I don’t think that Christie will run, I take the man at his word that he is neither prepared to be president nor has the “fire in the belly“, I can confidently say that he will not be the Republican nominee should he change his mind.

Rick Perry has shown what a late entry into a race can do to your reputation. While Perry quickly vaulted to the top of the polls, the result of a Republican base that is hungry for anyone with charisma to challenge Romney, it quickly became obvious that the over ten year record that Perry had as governor of Texas was a treasure trove of potential mud. While Christie has only been governor of New Jersey for fewer than two years, his positions will be quite problematic for him among the Republican base that is decidedly more conservative than it was in 2008.

While Christie isn’t a liberal by any stretch, many Republicans would be hard to identify him as anything short of it when they compare him to someone like Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann. Case in point, Christie supports civil unions, called people that believe Sharia law is a threat to the U.S. “crazy”, believes that climate change is man-made, and holds a tolerant stance on immigration. In other words, he’s a moderate Northeastern Republican that has essentially gone the way of the Dodo. The only other Northeastern Republican in the race, Mitt Romney, is likely to be the main casualty of a Christie entrance. Just don’t expect Christie to win anything other than New York and New Jersey.