These kind of charts are great and all... (0.00 / 0)

but you can't get a feel for the population differences between the states. I know most of the red western states are lower in population compared to the blue eastern states but, looking at the map, it still looks like a "majority" for the Republicans. If you could make the map 3D or show the overall population differences between the two it would really be informative. Thanks.

"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain

---

by: Stoic @ Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 20:49:24 PM UTC

I wouldn't call it good news (0.00 / 0)

Obama's electoral cushion is smaller than in 08. (it requires an extra state, Obama didn't need nevada in 08)

But on the upside, PVI is bullshit. All it gives you is an underestimation of the democratic base because it's going to have 2004 factored in it. Which is why for some reason Florida is seen as leaning republican and Virginia is a tossup but north carolina is solid red.

Keep in mind that any population gains are presumably not going to be in republican favor. Meaning texas will probably move to lean republican. Arizona to a real swing state, and florida to lean democrat, just for starters.

---

by: DeroCool @ Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 21:05:06 PM UTC

2012 US Presidential Election Electoral College Prediction. (0.00 / 0)

President Obama is favored to win.
1)CA- 55ev
2)CO- 64ev
3)CT- 71ev
4)DE- 74ev
5)DC- 77ev
6)HI- 81ev
7)IL- 101ev
8)IA- 105ev
9)ME- 109ev
10)MD- 119ev
11)MA- 130ev
12)MI- 146ev
13)MN- 155ev
14)NV- 161ev
15)NH- 165ev
16)NJ- 179ev
17)NM- 184ev
18)NY- 213ev
19)OR- 221ev
20)PA- 240ev
21)RI- 244ev
22)VT- 247ev
23)VA- 260ev
24)WA- 272ev
25)WI- 283ev.

---

by: nkpolitics @ Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 21:31:29 PM UTC

Interesting, But (0.00 / 0)

I highly doubt that this sort of calculation will dominate over the dynamic effects of realignment and the turbulance it brings.  Following 1932, the GOP was utterly convinced that FDR had overplayed his hand, particularly with Social Security. They ran hard against opressive big government, and lost 46 of 48 states.  The current attack on the auto industry is reminiscent of that.

Of course, Obama hasn't even been inagurated yet.  But that cuts both ways. When it comes to shooting themselves in the foot for 2012, they've already hit at least one toe.

And how well, exactly will a Palin/Plumber ticket play?

Of course there are no guarantees.  But even badly muffed realignments seem really hard to reverse.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 22:01:04 PM UTC

Does it matter? (0.00 / 0)

While your analyses are interesting and thought-inspiring, they are based on conjecture.

Like a reader said, Obama has not yet been inaugurated. In the end, the partisan leanings of states won't matter until the election, and that's if they do.

Assuming that Obama would actually run for re-election, you have to take several things into consideration. How was his Administration? What did they achieve? How popular are Congressional Democrats with the public? Has the GOP strengthened or weakened?

A lot goes on in four years. There's a host of other questions that require answers to know the results of the 2012 election- and even then, an unfortunate October surprise could suddenly give the election to a Republican.

I much prefer reading about what's going on with the transition, the Blue Dogs, and the other usual topics around here, but I really don't think Open Left needs to be analyzing elections for at least another year.

---

by: digitall565 @ Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 05:31:33 AM UTC

2012 Electoral Prediction (0.00 / 0)

I predict Obama will take every state he took this time again, PLUS Missouri and Texas. I also think Georgia will be much more in play.

The Rethugs are in such disarray that four years is not enough time to figure it out. Hell, FORTY years is not enough time to figure it out.

Peace.
Olmecmystic

---

by: Olmecmystic @ Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 16:27:56 PM UTC

What About Montana and the Dakotas? (0.00 / 0)

I agree re Missouri for certain, Texas, nearly so.

But the land up north looks mighty promising, too.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Dec 27, 2008 at 18:06:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

the National Popular Vote bill (0.00 / 0)

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 would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes-that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The bill is currently endorsed by 1,246 state legislators - 460 sponsors (in 47 states) and an additional 786 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 22 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes - 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote...  

---

by: mvymvy @ Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 18:13:54 PM UTC