Defining the "Land" in "Landslide"
Further evidence that when you're in a slump, even the simplest of things go wrong:
President Obama invited the '85 Chicago Bears to the White House (the joke being that Obama wants them to bring the 1985 economy), Bears' Hall of Fame defensive end Dan Hampton won't be attending:
“I’m not a fan of the guy in the White House, and … hey, it was 25 years ago. Let it go.”
The day's news cycle has buzz of Obama destined for the wrong end of a landslide in November 2012.
My question: how are we defining "land"?
Electoral votes, popular votes, both?
I encourage you to head over to 270towin.com and do a little red and blue coloring on the site's interactive election map.
In a non-landslide scenario, you get something like this: 38 states off the table, 12 states in play (for argument's sake: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin).
Some of those states (Nevada, North Carolina) stack up better for Republicans than others (New Mexico). But the purple dozen add up to 151 electoral votes. Adding that to the 191 electoral votes I believe are pretty much a given for the GOP candidate in 23 states, and there's the potential for a win on the order of 313-plus ev's.
Two-part question: do you think the Republicans can get that far, or will the final tally be something closer to Bush 2004 (286 electoral votes) or Bush 2000 (a minimum-plus-one 271).
Or, does Obama squeak by with the bare minimum, inch up toward Bush-reelect territory, or surprise us all and pass the 300-ev barrier?
Second question: popular vote.
Going into the final weekend of the 1980 race, Ronald Reagan had a lead of 3 points per Gallup and 5 points per Harris. The Washington Post and Newsweek had Carter up by a point.
There was no "October Surprise", no hostage deal. Voters took a deep breath and took one last deep look -- and Reagan won the contest by 10 points.
Could the same happen to Obama next year? Narrow race to the end, late break for change?
- Comment (16)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: Defining the "Land" in "Landslide"
Thirteen months is an eternity in politics. The only answer: Keep polling.
Re: Defining the "Land" in "Landslide"
Obama is a fake Bears fan- check his birth certificate, and you'll see he wasn't born in Illinois.
Nov '10
Re: Defining the "Land" in "Landslide"
May '11
Re: Defining the "Land" in "Landslide"
If you move Florida, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Colorada and Nevada or Iowa to the Repuplican side you have a tie. 269-269. I could see the possibility of this happening. If I was offered 15-1 odds on this scenerio I might take it. If gambling on such a thing was legal.
Sep '10
Re: Defining the "Land" in "Landslide"
Yes, the Republican nominee could win an electoral college landslide. I think Obama's prospects right now are slightly below even money. I don't see them getting much better, but they could easily get much worse.
Re: Defining the "Land" in "Landslide"
I do not believe that this will be close. Obama is the Democrats' answer to Herbert Hoover. So figure on a swing between 2008 and 2012 that resembles the swing between 1928 and 1932.
The Republicans -- especially, the candidates for the Presidential nomination -- need to give some thought to how they will govern . . . timidly or boldly.
May '11
Re: Defining the "Land" in "Landslide"
The fake birth certificate that states he was born in Hawaii? Or the real one that states he was born in Kenya?
I kid. I kid. :>
Re: Defining the "Land" in "Landslide"
thelonious
The fake birth certificate that states he was born in Hawaii? Or the real one that states he was born in Kenya?
I kid. I kid. :> · Sep 30 at 3:18pm
The one that says he was born in Green Bay. Dun dun dun...
Apr '11
Re: Defining the "Land" in "Landslide"
POTUS has more downside than upside at this point. I'm putting the GOP as 6:5 favorites right now, trending upward. The candidate chosen will matter, but I'm not sure how much. This will be a referendum on Obama, and he's definitely losing steam (not that he ever really had any).
Re: Defining the "Land" in "Landslide"
The 269-269 tie gets back to our previous discussion about the importance of House elections. You want insurance, keep the House in GOP hands. You'd think that would be a part of NRCC fundraising pitches.
More election trivia: in the modern age, we haven't had an election in which the incumbent was tossed, but at the same his party picked up the House or the Senate.
We also haven't had an election in which both chambers reversed their majority/minority status.
So 2012 would be breaking serious ground if we ended up with: (a) saying goodbye to President Obama and hello Re-Speaker Pelosi; (b) saying hello to Majority Leader McConnell and farewell to Speaker Boehner.
Apr '11
Re: Defining the "Land" in "Landslide"
I see no way the GOP loses the house. I can see them potentially not taking over the Senate, but they'd have to lose around 25 seats and that's bordering on a landslide in the opposite direction. All of this changes if the economy comes around, but there are very few indications of that right now - only glimmers of hope.
Nov '10
Re: Defining the "Land" in "Landslide"
May '10
Re: Defining the "Land" in "Landslide"
Paul A. Rahe: I do not believe that this will be close. Obama is the Democrats' answer to Herbert Hoover. So figure on a swing between 2008 and 2012 that resembles the swing between 1928 and 1932.
The Republicans -- especially, the candidates for the Presidential nomination -- need to give some thought to how they will govern . . . timidly or boldly. · Sep 30 at 3:10pm
I'm with the professor here...and what will be shocking will be the almost solidly red Midwest, mottled New England, and even some Western coastal states will go red. By November 2012, Europe's mess will have scared the willikers out of Americans and this will be seen in history books as a realignment election...as 1932 was.
One last teaser...California will be competitive...
Edited on Sep 30, 2011 at 7:45pmNov '10
Re: Defining the "Land" in "Landslide"
Re: Defining the "Land" in "Landslide"
I'm surprised that no one has latched on to this post's opening. First, let's stipulate that inviting a Super Bowl championship team from 25 years ago to the White House is a little silly, particularly given the gravity of the current state of the nation.
That being said, I'm not a fan of Dan Hampton's response. Politics aside, he was invited to the White House by the President of the United States. I'm sure many of the professional athletes I watched enter the Bush White House weren't fans of POTUS # 43. But the vast majority did the honorable thing and held their tongues, realizing that the significance of the invitation trumped partisan inclinations. Though I'm with Hampton on the sentiment, he should have done the same.
Nov '10
Re: Defining the "Land" in "Landslide"
It strikes me as odd that I never run into pundits (sorry, term not used pejoratively) talking about, what to me, is the most salient feature of Obama's run for reelection: That there IS a clear run for reelection more than a year away from the election. Does anyone think that Obama can maintain his current head of steam for 14 months?
You might say "what head of steam? His approval numbers are at 40%". I'm talking of what he's doing -- turning every trip into a campaign stop, stumping at every event he attends, major fundraisers, even working partisan jabs and "presidential debating points" into every address to the nation.
There is such a thing as voter fatigue. The attention span is short of 14 months. You can already see the patience wearing thin -- he's losing his broad support, and remarkably, the cracks are showing first in the media. It's clear to a lot of folks that he's already in panic. By this time next year he'll be off the rails and it will be remarkable, to me, if he hasn't been primaried by then.