Posts Tagged ‘president’

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.

NaNoWriMo: And So It Begins…

Posted on: November 2nd, 2012 by Kyle. | No Comments

For the second year in a row I’ve decided to participate in the National Novel Writing Month. Basically it is an intense month-long writing marathon that challenges authors to compose a 50,000 word novel in just thirty days throughout the month of November. I fell short of finishing in the month last year with Operation Bald Eagle. It ultimately took two months (which I thought was still respectable). This year I’m determined to actually get it done in one.

The book is tentatively titled Dusk Before Dawn and is a direct sequel to Operation Bald Eagle. “What’s it about?” you ask. Good question!

A presidential election is underway to replace a corrupt government overrun by lobbyists and super PACs. The CIA already brought down a sitting president and members of Congress who colluded with a crazed business mogul intent on starting a war with China during Operation Bald Eagle, yet monied interests continue to have a stranglehold on American democracy. Meanwhile, international events in Europe promise to upend the election in a big way. Agent Ethan Clark and the CIA must confront global conflict while closely monitoring the integrity of the American elections.

It’s definitely a timely topic with just a week to go before the election. If you’re worried that it is loaded with partisan ramblings, though, then you have nothing to fear. This book is meant to draw attention to the rampant corruption of our current political system with its limitless flood of cash from millionaires and billionaires at the expense of average voters. It does not attempt to blame one party or the other. Since it is a work of fiction it uses obvious hyperbole, but it still acts as a warning for the future of our democracy.

You can read Dusk Before Dawn as it is being written by visiting my NaNoWriMo page at Smashwords (http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/250909). Check back throughout November for updates on the writing process!

Tentative book cover

Thoughts Before Tonight’s Debate

Posted on: October 22nd, 2012 by Kyle. | No Comments

Tonight’s presidential debate will focus on foreign policy. I remember in 2004 the Bush campaign ran on the premise that he “kept us safe” despite 9/11 taking place under his leadership. Fast forward eight years and President Obama is running for re-election with Republicans saying that his foreign policy has “failed” despite having killed Osama bin Laden, restoring respect among our European allies and preventing any major terrorist attacks on American soil — not to mention the fact that he got all of America’s soldiers out of Iraq. Obama’s foreign policy record is perhaps his strongest argument for re-election. Romney has a tough task to prove otherwise.

Ron Paul Indie Run Has Support of 1 in 5 Voters

Posted on: November 20th, 2011 by Kyle. | No Comments

Ron Paul is unlikely to win the Republican nomination, but should he run as an independent in next fall’s election he would be the strongest independent candidate since Ross Perot in 1992. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll pegs the Texas Congressman’s support at 18 percent in a three-way race between himself, President Obama and Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee. While President Obama easily routs Mitt Romney in a two-way race (49-43), support for both of them falls with Paul in the race. Obama would only win 44 percent of the vote to Romney’s 32 percent.

Perhaps an even likelier scenario for Paul would be to run as the nominee of the Libertarian Party as he did in 1988. This would give him a guaranteed spot on the ballot in a number of states, including critical swing states such as Indiana. Instead of focusing on collecting signatures for an independent run, Paul could get an automatic position on the ballot and instead focus on campaigning. Given the reality of the electoral college, Paul could conceivably win enough electoral votes to deny either Obama or Romney a majority. That would send the race to the U.S. House of Representatives.

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.

President Obama Rakes in $70 Million

Posted on: October 14th, 2011 by Kyle. | No Comments

As I reported on Gather.com:

President Obama has raised more than $70 million for the third quarter on behalf of his re-election campaign and the Democratic Party. The campaign noted that nearly a million donors have given money to date with donations of $250 or less making up 98 percent of the total. The average donation is currently $56.

“Getting to a million grassroots donors isn’t just a huge accomplishment this early in the campaign. It’s our answer to our opponents, the press, and anyone who wants to know whether the President’s supporters have his back,” campaign manager Jim Messina said in an e-mail to Obama supporters.

The president currently enjoys a huge money advantage over his Republican rivals. Mitt Romney only managed to raise $15 million for the third quarter while Rick Perry pulled in $17 million. As I mention in the article, though, the rise of Super PACs will mean that unlimited corporate dollars can be pumped in to support the GOP nominee, a result of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling. Obama’s fundraising numbers are somewhat misleading as a result since we simply do not know how much corporate money will be spent to defeat the president.

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.

Pennsylvania Voters Oppose Partisan Effort to Change Electoral Vote

Posted on: September 29th, 2011 by Kyle. | No Comments

Republican politicians in Pennsylvania have floated around the idea of changing state election law to give their party’s nominee an advantage in next year’s election. The Democratic-leaning state has not supported a Republican for president since George Bush’s father in 1988 against Michael Dukakis. Barack Obama easily defeated John McCain here in 2008 by a margin of over ten percentage points – slightly more than 600,000 votes.

So how do Republicans in the state plan on undermining President Obama in his bid for re-election?

The answer is actually pretty simple. They don’t have to raise millions of dollars, run TV ads or even get volunteers to canvass for votes. All they have to do is change a mundane election law within the state to move from a “winner-take-all” system, where the winner of the statewide race gets all Electoral Votes, to a system that is based on Congressional districts. In this system there would literally be 18 different elections for president taking place within Pennsylvania.

Let me explain. Each ten years the Census is held as required by the Constitution. Along with the Census comes Congressional redistricting where each state legislature is tasked with redrawing lines to make sure that each Congressional district has the same number of people. Since people move in and out of states, as well as around within the same state, this is a necessary reflection of the flow of people.

However, redistricting is often a partisan process. If a single party controls a state House, Senate and governor’s mansion, as the Republicans do in Pennsylvania currently, they can engineer a map that conforms to their political wishes. Essentially they are expected to produce a map where a state that voted 55% for Barack Obama in 2008 will only elect 6 Democrats to Congress next year and 12 Republicans. If Obama only carries those Democratic districts and not any Republican districts, he could win the statewide popular vote in Pennsylvania but decisively lose their Electoral Votes.

A new poll done by the independent Quinnipiac University finds that 52% of Pennsylvania voters oppose the effort to change the law to only 40% that support it. It’s no surprise that 57% of voters say that the changes being proposed are only being done to help the Republican presidential candidate. Among the all-important independent voters in the state, support for keeping winner-takes-all stands at 53%. Even Republican voters are hesitant to support these partisan efforts. 44% of Republicans say leave it alone, while 48% want the law to be changed.

“Pennsylvania voters say stick to the winner-take-all formula used in most states: Whoever gets the most popular votes, wins all of the state’s Electoral College votes,” said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. “Overall, most Pennsylvanians think the proposal is being presented to give partisan advantage to Republicans. By large margins, Democrats and independent voters are not buying that ‘will of the voters’ argument.”

Of course because these same lawmakers get to draw up their own maps for state House and Senate districts, not just Congressional maps, what voters think might not matter all that much. The voters don’t get to decide their politicians, the politicians get to decide their voters.

A Victory for Liberal Foreign Policy

Posted on: August 23rd, 2011 by Kyle. | No Comments

President Obama might not like to gloat about his foreign policy victories, but he deserves recognition for them. The toppling of the Gaddafi regime is a rare triumph for American foreign policy in recent years. Without the leadership of President Obama, the rebels would have been squashed in Benghazi and the country would have remained in the control of Gaddafi for the foreseeable future.

While America has lost thousands of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, not a single American troop was killed during the combat mission in Libya. The result was the removal of one of the world’s longest-running dictatorships and an irritant to its region. Gaddafi will not be missed by anyone.

The Libyan mission has shown what liberal foreign policy looks like. Out are the neo-conservative go-it-alone attitudes. In are coalition-building, limited military air support and willingness to aid those in distress with supplies. The mission won international approval at the United Nations. Other Arab nations even supported the NATO mission.

Aside from having political support from the international community, the United States allowed NATO to take the lead role. Not only were our European allies encouraged to participate, the French were the ones to initiate bombing. Costs were shared between nations as well as responsibility and risks. While the United States spent over $1 trillion between the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the cost of removing Gaddafi is unlikely to pass more than a few billion dollars.

This is a welcome change from the Bush administration when the United States was burdened with nearly everything, from the loss of life to military expenditures. Yet President George W. Bush and administration officials readily took credit for events that he had very little involvement in, such as the thwarting of potential terrorist attacks and “mission accomplished” in Iraq. Eight years later, the country is still in Iraq, although thanks to President Obama, we will have all troops out by the end of this year.

While the fighting is mostly over, Libya now has the potential for a democratic state. The people of Libya will be able to decide their own destiny – without having put a single American troop on the ground. Just as important for the United States, our foreign policy has shifted under President Obama from a neo-conservative rush to war to a liberal coalition-building approach that topples dictators without engaging our military in decade-long war.

John Thune Passes Up Presidential Bid

Posted on: February 23rd, 2011 by Kyle. | No Comments

Senator John Thune of South Dakota declared on Tuesday that he would not be seeking the Republican nomination for president in 2012. The “rising star” in the Republican Party, as he is often called, would have had a decent shot at winning the party’s nomination. Personally, I had my bets on him. Unlike Palin, Romney, Gingrich and Huckabee, Thune does not have serious political baggage. Unlike Mitch Daniels and Tim Pawlenty, he could credibly call himself a true blood conservative. He’s only served in the Senate for the past six years, so he would have been able to run as an “outsider”. And as superficial as it seems, he’s young and has good looks. All of them a plus.

So why did he decide to forgo a bid in 2012? The groundwork had already been laid for a potential run, he was getting his name out there, and has a passionate base of conservative support. The likely answer is that he saw the writing on the wall: President Obama is likely to win re-election in 2012. With his poll numbers back above 50% in an economy with unemployment still above 9%, it is pretty easy to see that the president’s standing will only further strengthen as the economy continues to improve.

Of course, a lot of things could happen to change the president’s fortunes: unrest in the Middle East could lead to higher gas prices and a double dip recession, Republicans may force a shut down of government if their budget cuts are not signed into law, etc. Still, the betting odds would have to be on the side of the president. A divided Republican Party, a likely Tea Party rebellion in the primaries and a clear field towards the Democratic nomination for Obama mean that he can essentially do what Bush did in 2004, sitting on the sidelines raising money while the Democrats beat each other to a bloody pulp. John Kerry emerged from 2004 with the label of a flip-flopper from Howard Dean supporters and it stuck throughout the campaign. It’s easy to imagine a similar situation occurring in a contested Republican primary, especially with fire-throwing Tea Party candidates.

With Thune out, there are now no sitting senators actively seeking the White House in 2012, a highly unusual situation. In fact, it’s possible that not a single member of Congress runs for president in 2012, unless Michele Bachmann or Ron Paul decide to run. Most of the potential candidates are has-beens: Romney was a one-term governor over four years ago, Gingrich the Speaker of the House during the 1994 Republican Revolution, and Sarah Palin a half-term governor of a small state. The only potential candidate currently holding an actual office is Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels. Not exactly a strong field of candidates. It says a lot when no one on the Republican side seems willing to lose their current job in order to make a run for the most powerful office in the world.