Posted on 12/03/2011 6:35:12 PM PST by neverdem
Make sure to read The New York Times's Jim Rutenberg's excellent overview of Team Obama's 2012 strategy, which involves a healthy heaping of negative attacks on the Republican nominee sprinkled with helpful reminders about the president's counterterrorism successes.
But one nugget about the electoral map caught my eye. Rutenberg writes:
Obama's team acknowledges that it is not likely that the stars will align as well for them in 2012. But, having won in 2008 with 365 electoral votes when 270 are needed, they believe they have 95 to spare next year. That buys a lot of breathing room. Mr. Obama could lose Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, New Hampshire, Iowa and Indiana and still win re-election -- though that would mean having to win just about every other state he won last time...
Mr. Messina also said the campaign would focus on holding on to the "New South" states of Virginia and North Carolina that Mr. Obama won last time. It has gone all-out with its plan to have the Democratic convention in Charlotte in September.
That's a roundabout way of saying that Obama's team is focusing on winning Virginia, North Carolina, Nevada, Colorado (and Michigan/Wisconsin in the Democratic-leaning column) as its most logical pathway to 270 electoral votes. It means that, despite the spin they're focused at winning every state, they feel that their best chance of securing 270 electoral votes is through the upscale, white-collar coalition that propelled Obama to victory in 2008 - one I outlined in my column earlier this month. It explains the administration's decision to punt on the Keystone XL pipeline, for fear of alienating environmentalists that make up an important constituency in many of these states.
It also means Obama's pathway to victory is awfully narrow. Under this map, Obama could win with 270 electoral votes, to the Republican's 268. And it would include carrying North Carolina, the home of the Democratic convention next year, which Obama only won by 14,000 votes in 2008.
The spin shows that while Obama's team is putting an optimistic face on its prospects, its path to victory is getting narrower.
UPDATE: Also note, from Julie Pace's AP dispatch, that the White House is emphasizing VP Joe Biden's campaign role in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Floirda over Obama's.Those three traditional battleground states were included on the list of states Obama could lose and still win 270 electoral votes.
What does that make the people who force an unacceptable nominee on those people and make them not vote?
Obamais seeking to collapse this nation. If I had to vote for madoff or John Wayne Gacy over Bama I would.
Add in that Obama is not going to win in Wisconsin in 2012.
______________________________________________________________
For real??? I hope you’re right. The Union thugs are so vile in WI, if they drive Gov. Scott Walker from office, WI could go for Obozo. Am I right or wrong?
I don’t think Obama is highly unlikely to win both NC and VA again. Also winning IN again would be a long shot. And since Marco Rubio is almost guaranteed to be the vice presidential nominee that also very likely takes FL off the table for them as well.
so that double negative means he is highly likely to win both NC and VA???
Also, why is Rubio “almost guaranteed” to be VP?
Source?
Correct. It dates back more than 100 years. The last person to do it was Grover Cleveland in 1892.
They won’t get Walker out of office. the people here don’t want him out. The union thugs and teachers do, but they are a tiny minority.
They will waste a lot of time and money for nothing. Which is fine, they will taste defeat again.
And then we will defeat Baldwin when former Gov. Thompson wins over the lesbian hyper-liberal tammy baldwin, and Obama doesn’t win Wisconsin.
President Obama was recently asked by the press what what the result of America losing 2 million more jobs for the next 2 years would be and he replied... “FORE!”
Well, this is great news....from your lips to God’s ears. BTW, how ‘bout those Badgers? YeeeHaaaw!!! GO BADGERS, WIN THE ROSE BOWL!
Lord, I hope not. It’s really getting too late for Trump or anyone to get a Third Party run organized.
Also keep in mind Senate races, which are heavily skewed in red states in 2012, including VA, FLA, NV, MO, MT, IN and in battleground states like MI, WI, PA, NJ, OH.
In a Republican year, these races will bury the Obamunist at the top of the ticket.
They will waste a lot of time and money for nothing. Which is fine, they will taste defeat again.
And then we will defeat Baldwin when former Gov. Thompson wins over the lesbian hyper-liberal tammy baldwin, and Obama doesn’t win Wisconsin.
Lets pray on that.
I'm convinced that Wisconsin is ground zero for this next election. I always thought it was odd how the democratic party and the unions and all these left wing groups were pouring such massive amounts of cash, and time and manpower into one state over one issue. Why here, why this, and why now ?
And then it hit me, they need this state, and they need to be able to get away with voter fraud (again), thats why it was so important to get rid of that judge (and they failed), to turn the legislature (and they failed) and now they are going after Walker (btw, that "recall" effort, actually started......right after election day, it was quieter then, just the groundwork, but the domain name was bought as soon as he was elected).
The Obama machine, will not rest or sleep, until they remove any or every obstacle, they can, and like a rat trapped in a corner, they are desperate, they are going to dig up every corpse, spend any amount of money, do whatever it takes, to get Walker out, if they fail, that could be the end of them.
Also note, I'm not thinking Thompson wins the primary, from what I understand, DeMint and the tea party and the conservative orgs are all backing Neuman in this race.
The sad reality is this: DEFAMATION of character pays off. What the last Herman Cain accuser did would be regarded as a MAJOR SIN.
Walker will still be in.
The south will go solid GOP next year. Remember this is the Bible Belt we are talking about, even with some northern transplants.
And the 7th column is the union mentality.
Obama will also not carry Florida. There are still more common sense past or present “makers” in Fla than “takers”.
Does anyone else find it strange that NO women have been 'found' in Obama's life before Michelle?
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/11/14/michelles-women-for-obama-versus-obamas-women/ excerpt:
So I’m asking you to join me, and women all across the country who support this movement. I’m asking you to say you’re ready to work.
Join Women for Obama, and help us grow this organization:
http://my.barackobama.com/Women-for-Obama
Thank you for being a part of this,
Michelle
Guess Mrs. Obama missed out on the brouhaha raised by Obama’s women in the White House who don’t believe they got a “fair shake.”
Now, some of the actual women who served in the White House are bemoaning the “hostile workplace” at 1600 Pennsylvania:
Friction about the roles of women in the Obama White House grew so intense during the first two years of the president’s tenure that he was forced to take steps to reassure senior women on his staff that he valued their presence and their input.
At a dinner in November 2009, several senior female aides complained directly to the president that men enjoyed greater access to him and often muscled them out of key policy discussions.
Those tensions prompted Obama, urged on by senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, to elevate more women into senior White House positions, recognize them more during staff meetings and increase the female presence in the upper ranks of the reelection campaign. “There were some issues early on with women feeling as though they hadn’t figured out what their role was going to be on the senior team at the White House,” Jarrett said in an interview Monday. “Most of the women hadn’t worked on the campaign, and so they didn’t have a personal relationship with the president.”
…One of the most striking quotes in the book came from former White House communications director Anita Dunn , who was quoted as saying that, “this place would be in court for a hostile workplace. . . . Because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.”
Dunn says she was quoted out of context and told The Post on Friday that she told Suskind “point blank” that the White House was not a hostile work environment.
Except that, er, she did say that:
On Monday, Suskind allowed a Post reporter to review a recorded excerpt of the original interview, which took place over the telephone in April. In that conversation, Dunn is heard telling Suskind about a conversation she had with Jarrett.
“I remember once I told Valerie that, I said if it weren’t for the president, this place would be in court for a hostile workplace,” Dunn is heard telling Suskind. “Because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.”
Oops.
It’s game over if he loses PA.
Right. I think Obama is highly unlikely to win both those states.
Instinct.
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.