Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

For the Campaigns, Itís Already About Electoral College Math
Rasmussen Reports ^ | September 9, 2011 | Larry J. Sabato

Posted on 09/12/2011 6:44:32 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued

Straw polls, real polls, debates, caucuses and primaries — these comprise the public side of presidential campaigns 14 months before Election Day. But behind the scenes, strategists for President Obama and his major Republican opponents are already focused like a laser on the Electoral College.

The emerging general election contest gives every sign of being highly competitive, unlike 2008. Of course, at this point in 1983 and 1995, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, respectively, were in trouble; and in 1991 George H.W. Bush still looked safe. Unexpectedly strong economic growth could make Obama’s reelection path much easier than it currently looks to be. So could the nomination of a damaged candidate by the Republicans. On the other hand, a few more months like the preceding couple, and Obama’s reelection trajectory will resemble Jimmy Carter’s.

These possibilities aside, both parties are sensibly planning for a close election. For all the talk about what Hispanics will do or how young people will vote, the private chatter is about which party column the vital swing states will favor. It’s always the Electoral College math that matters most.

George Mason supported an Electoral College because “…it would be as unnatural to refer the choice of a proper character for chief Magistrate to the people, as it would, to refer a trial of colours to a blind man.” The Electoral College has survived only because it has evolved into the converse of Mason’s vision. The people in each state judge presidential character, decide the ballots cast by electors and — blindly or not — choose the colors that cloak the states on election night, either Republican Red or Democratic Blue.

(Excerpt) Read more at rasmussenreports.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: campaigns; college; electoral; electoralcollege; math

1 posted on 09/12/2011 6:44:35 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: randita; Impy; fieldmarshaldj; AuH2ORepublican; justiceseeker93; darkangel82; JulieRNR21

It all depends on how conditions appear next year and whether Republicans nominate a good candidate.


2 posted on 09/12/2011 6:48:02 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued (Illegal aliens collect welfare checks that Americans won't collect)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued

I predict a 49 state landslide for Rick Perry...


3 posted on 09/12/2011 6:51:05 PM PDT by CMailBag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued

Is it just me...or does Mitt Romney resemble Bob Dole?


4 posted on 09/12/2011 6:52:03 PM PDT by proudpapa (Palin-West - 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued
Good Related Article
5 posted on 09/12/2011 6:54:32 PM PDT by IllumiNaughtyByNature ($1.84 - The price of a gallon of gas on Jan. 20th, 2009.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued
"either Republican Red or Democratic Blue."

Total k|`@|).

'rats are red through and through.

6 posted on 09/12/2011 6:54:36 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CMailBag

One thing for sure, Illinois will never go to a Republican.


7 posted on 09/12/2011 7:06:36 PM PDT by GrannyK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

Other Freepers have made that point about the color scheme. History is on your side. It’s unfortunate that the colors assigned have been stamped onto the national conciousness.


8 posted on 09/12/2011 7:12:37 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued (Illegal aliens collect welfare checks that Americans won't collect)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued

I don’t accept them.


9 posted on 09/12/2011 7:14:15 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued

Strong economic growth? Not likely. Any increase in obama’s popularity will scare the crap out of business and the markets. In effect, this will act as a thermostat. Businesses are holding their breath.


10 posted on 09/12/2011 7:14:47 PM PDT by grumpygresh (Democrats delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: proudpapa

Mitt Romney is the latest pro New Deal, pro Great Society candidate. He’ll do what he has to to destroy any real conservatives to get the support of the powers that be, who will then abandon him to support the democrat. We’ve seen his like any number of times.


11 posted on 09/12/2011 7:16:19 PM PDT by cotton1706
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued

It all depends on whether the GOP nominee blows bubbles with his drool. If he refrains, he will be elected in a landslide and it won’t be close.


12 posted on 09/12/2011 7:16:52 PM PDT by Tennessean4Bush (An optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist fears this is true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued

I mean look at it this way: If a Pub can’t win against an unpopular President with 9% unemployment, $6-8T in new debt, taxes set to go up, a double-dip recession, etc., then a Pub will never win.


13 posted on 09/12/2011 7:19:48 PM PDT by Tennessean4Bush (An optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist fears this is true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

Originally the dims were red and republicans were blue. Sometime in the late seventies they flipped the colors around. Back then, there were only the big three networks and they realized that the red comparison would not be good for their agenda.


14 posted on 09/12/2011 8:52:55 PM PDT by Hogblog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Hogblog
Originally the dims were red and republicans were blue. Sometime in the late seventies 2000 election, they flipped the colors around.
15 posted on 09/12/2011 8:57:38 PM PDT by BillyBoy (Impeach Obama? Yes We Can!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: CMailBag
I predict a 49 state landslide for Rick Perry...

I agree this is possible, and very likely at the least, because as Larry Sabato wrote:

Unexpectedly strong economic growth could make Obama’s reelection path much easier than it currently looks to be.

Unexpectedly strong ecomonic growth? BWAH HA HA!

16 posted on 09/12/2011 9:19:07 PM PDT by ARepublicanForAllReasons (The world will be a better place when humanity learns not to try to make it a perfect place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Hogblog

I found some old videos on YouTube of 1980 election coverage - looks like Reagan’s states were blue and Carter’s red in that election. In 1984 and every election since then in the election coverage, Republicans have been colored red and Democrats blue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTMpQqDP-nk - 1980 coverage video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev_9YcM-HNI - 1984 coverage - video


17 posted on 09/12/2011 9:54:00 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy; Republican Wildcat
Sometime in the late seventies 2000 election,...

Republican Wildcat is correct. It flipped between '80 and '84. Check his post #14. In '96 they were already showing dems blue, Pubs red.

18 posted on 09/13/2011 2:31:24 AM PDT by Right Wing Assault (Dick Obama is more inexperienced now than he was before he was elected.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Assault; BillyBoy; Republican Wildcat
The red and blue had nothing to do with one party or the other.

Blue was used for the party holding the White House and red for the challenger.

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)

LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

19 posted on 09/13/2011 3:56:33 AM PDT by LonePalm (Commander and Chef)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: LonePalm
"Blue was used for the party holding the White House and red for the challenger. "

That's the way I remember it.

Now the colors need to be reversed whenever possible, rather than to roll over and go along.

20 posted on 09/13/2011 5:11:48 AM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2
Unfortunately, the prolonged fight over the 2000 election seems to have frozen the color identification in place.

The democrats don't want to be identified with 'red' because it correctly associates them with the socialists and communists.

The worst thing you can do to a democrat is to identify or quote them accurately.

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)

LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

21 posted on 09/13/2011 5:40:15 AM PDT by LonePalm (Commander and Chef)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Hogblog

This is where the massive amount of (mis)information on the internet starts to show.
Not long ago, it was possible to quickly find a chart showing red/blue maps for the last several decades of elections, with notes explaining that in this or that year, red = this party, and blue the other.
My memory was that it flipped every election to avoid any preferential argument being made by one side or the other.

Not only can I not find that set of maps, the sheer number of references to the post 2000 “norm” has buried it. The closest I can find is the following link, which actually defines it a bit differently, though perhaps more accurately than I recall:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_11/005157.php


22 posted on 09/13/2011 6:18:01 AM PDT by Apogee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: LonePalm; Paladin2
Blue was used for the party holding the White House and red for the challenger.

Not in '80 and '84. It was the reverse.

23 posted on 09/13/2011 7:22:31 PM PDT by Right Wing Assault (Dick Obama is more inexperienced now than he was before he was elected.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued

56 states for Perry.


24 posted on 09/13/2011 7:24:40 PM PDT by Revolting cat! (Let us prey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LonePalm; Right Wing Assault; BillyBoy; Paladin2

Reagan’s states were blue in 1980 and Carter’s red - I posted the video link above.


25 posted on 09/13/2011 10:04:12 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Assault

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-52n_qaL6BE 1988 - Dem Blue, GOP Red

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IxGjLb2rqM 1992 - Dem Blue, GOP Red

I found one video from 1972 it showed Nixon’s states as blue. Could not find any from any other years.


26 posted on 09/13/2011 10:13:40 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson