Presidential Math, Or David Brooks, Wrong Again
Obama will win easily.
—David Brooks, the New York Times, April 14, 2011
Obama is likely to lose.
—Peggy Noonan, the Wall Street Journal, April 15, 2011
How the heck would I know?
—Peter Robinson, Ricochet, April 15, 2011
Actually, I’ve been giving presidential politics a little thought lately, and I think I do know: Whereas it’s too early to say whether Obama will win or lose, it’s not at all too early to say that David Brooks is simply mistaken. There is virtually no chance whatever that Obama will win “easily.”
This isn’t a question of the national mood or the national economy or the national anything else. It’s a question of 50 separate and individual state races. And when you start playing around with the electoral map, what strikes you is how close the presidential race is likely to prove.
Bill Whalen went through the basic analysis here on Ricochet a couple of weeks ago, but since then I’ve been looking at the numbers myself. With apologies to Bill, here’s what yours truly comes up with.
To capture the White House, of course, a ticket must win 270 of the nation’s 538 electoral votes. Start with the electoral votes Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin each received in 2008:
Obama/Biden………………365
McCain/Palin……………….173
Next, assume Obama/Biden carry the same states in 2012, but adjust the electoral vote count for the changes that will have occurred as a result of the 2000 census:
Obama/Biden………....…...…359
Republican challengers……...179
Now make the entirely safe assumption that in 2012 Virginia and North Carolina will revert to their historical norms, voting for the GOP:
Obama/Biden…………….....…337
Republican challengers……....201
Next, look to the Midwest. Assume the GOP candidates carry Indiana, which in 2008 Obama carried by just one point, and Ohio, in which Republicans won a near sweep in the midterms.
Obama/Biden…………........…306
Republican challengers..........232
Now look West. Note that three western states, Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico, possess large Hispanic populations. Who might swing Hispanics to the GOP? Marco Rubio. Suppose the Republican nominee has the wits to make Marco Rubio his running mate—and that the ticket carries Colorado and either New Mexico or Nevada.
Obama/Biden…………….…292
?/Rubio…………..…….……246
At this point, the GOP ticket would need to win only a single big state. Make it Rubio's home state of Florida, a state in which the GOP controls the governor’s mansion and both houses of the legislature.
Obama/Biden…………….…265
?/Rubio………………….…..273 VICTORY
A creditable Republican candidate with Marco Rubio as his running mate, in other words, could capture the White House neatly—and do so without a single state on the West Coast, without the upper midwestern states of Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan or Minnesota, and without New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware or a single state in New England.
The bad news? The margin of victory is a mere three electoral votes—and it’s not all that easy to see where the Republican ticket could find more. If Pawlenty is the nominee, maybe he could carry Minnesota, for 10 electoral votes. Or if Christie changes his mind and runs, maybe the GOP could carry New Jersey, for 14 votes. And maybe if Scott Walker has recovered in the polls by election day the GOP could carry Wisconsin, for another 10. Beyond that, it’s hard to see where the GOP would pick up many votes.
On the other hand, it’s almost impossible to figure out where Obama would get a lot of extra electoral votes, either. Maybe he’ll hold onto Colorado. And maybe he’ll even hold onto Pennsylvania. But that still would only get him to 292 electoral votes. And that would hardly amount to "winning easily."
What the heck. Have a little fun. Go to www.270towin.com and play with the electoral map yourself. Then let us know what you conclude.
- Comment (39)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: Presidential Math, Or David Brooks, Wrong Again
What I do know is, if it's close, + or -, Democrats win.
May '10
Re: Presidential Math, Or David Brooks, Wrong Again
"Assume GOP candidates carry Ohio..."
Well that was easy! :)
I hope you're right, big guy, but Kasich's got some work to do. He's pushed hard for reform (harder than Walker, in fact, because he included police and fire in his union roll-back) and has suffered in popularity because of it. If Ohio learns to love John between now and the summer of 2012, then we're in business. If not, we're in deep doo doo.
The 49 other states? Details, mere details.
Sep '10
Re: Presidential Math, Or David Brooks, Wrong Again
I wouldn't bet on Colorado, and I say that sadly as a resident. The state just keeps becoming bluer and bluer, and if California continues its implosion I expect Colorado and its neighbors to become even bluer as the socialist contagion spreads.
But, the good news is it is possible to eak out a victory, especially with Rubio. And we'll certainly pick up many senate seats and gain a solid majority, so with budget reconciliation we can trim the fat if the GOP has the will, as it will have the power at that point.
Jul '10
Re: Presidential Math, Or David Brooks, Wrong Again
Another way to look at it: the GOP takes the states it took in 2008 and FL, NC and VA. That puts Barry at 273 given the current census. If the GOP takes NH, NM, NV or CO, the GOP wins. And that's not considering IN or OH.
I think the president is in a tough spot.
Dec '10
Re: Presidential Math, Or David Brooks, Wrong Again
Without having gone to the mentioned website, I can tell you why David Brooks said that Obama will win easily, and why Brooks will continue to say that until reality forces him to admit otherwise.
Brooks has a deep and abiding faith in the wisdom -- nearing infallibility -- of those educated in the Ivy Leagues. This is why he assessed Obama as a first-rate mind based on the crease in the candidate's pants, and this is why he believes that his own assessment of Obama can't have been so deeply mistaken that Obama would end up being a one-term failure of a President.
I imagine the Vegas casinos love to see Brooks coming. He's the kind of guy who'll keep throwing down horn bets at the craps table because he just KNOWS their high payouts exceed the risks -- and he'll spend every dime he has just to prove he's right.
Jun '10
Re: Presidential Math, Or David Brooks, Wrong Again
* Gas at $5 per gallon.
* Food and energy inflation
* Massive increase in the cost of servicing the US debt as bond holders dump US treasuries.
* 63 House seats lost in 2010
* Real unemployment at %15
"Obama wins easily." - Uh-huh.
Re: Presidential Math, Or David Brooks, Wrong Again
Peter Robinson
Who might swing Hispanics to the GOP? Marco Rubio. Suppose the Republican nominee has the wits to make Marco Rubio his running mate—and that the ticket carries Colorado and either New Mexico or Nevada.
I hate to harsh your mellow (as Jonah Goldberg recently put it on a podcast), but the Hispanics out West are predominantly of the Mexican variety. I don't think you can just assume that the son of Cuban immigrants will especially appeal to Mexicans.
Nov '10
Re: Presidential Math, Or David Brooks, Wrong Again
Peter Robinson:
Now look West. Note that three western states, Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico, possess large Hispanic populations. Who might swing Hispanics to the GOP? Marco Rubio.
Not necessarily. As a huge supporter of Marco and a Florida resident, I can't emphasize enough that all citizens from Hispanic backgrounds do not vote alike. Cuban-Americans are perceived quite differently among Hispanic groups; they are often resented for their relatively high rates of financial success and extraordinary work ethic.
Edited on Apr 15, 2011 at 3:58pmJun '10
Re: Presidential Math, Or David Brooks, Wrong Again
Noonan makes the better case. And, as pointed out by others, there is more than one way for a Republican candidate to get there.
I am willing to make one bold prediction: My home state of Utah will go Republican. I know, I'm a brave man.
Mar '11
Re: Presidential Math, Or David Brooks, Wrong Again
Diane Ellis, Ed.
I hate to harsh your mellow (as Jonah Goldberg recently put it on a podcast), but the Hispanics out West are predominantly of the Mexican variety. I don't think you can just assume that the son of Cuban immigrants will especially appeal to Mexicans. · Apr 15 at 3:49pm
One of the most surprising learning experiences of my young life was during my enlistment in the Navy many moons ago, and I discovered just how much strife there is between different Hispanic groups. The Puerto Ricans didn't like the Mexicans, the Mexicans resented the Cubans, and I even heard Cubans knocking Columbians. Go figure.
Dec '10
Re: Presidential Math, Or David Brooks, Wrong Again
Elizabeth Dunn
Peter Robinson:
Now look West. Note that three western states, Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico, possess large Hispanic populations. Who might swing Hispanics to the GOP? Marco Rubio.
Not necessarily. As a huge supporter of Marco and a Florida resident, I can't emphasize enough that all citizens from Hispanic backgrounds do not vote alike. Cuban-Americans are perceived quite differently among Hispanic groups; they are often resented for their relatively high rates of financial success and extraordinary work ethic. · Apr 15 at 3:50pm
Edited on Apr 15 at 03:58 pm
Not to mention that Cubans who make it to American soil are granted immediate asylum. That tends to rankle other Hispanic groups whose ancestral countrymen don't get the same privilege.
Dec '10
Re: Presidential Math, Or David Brooks, Wrong Again
From "Hill Street Blues":
RAY: Chief Daniels, my esteemed colleagues, it is with great pride that I accept and thank you for this award. At a time like this, I feel that there is only one thing that I can say:
Why huevos rancheros? And why margaritas? Why do you assume that all Hispanic people like that kind of food?
I don't like that kind of food. I'm not Mexican. I'm not even Puerto Rican. You go to all this trouble to give this banquet in my honor, and no one even bothers to find out that I'm COLOMBIAN, not Mexican or Puerto Rican.
And furthermore, phrases like "credit to his people" and "fine Puerto Rican-American" tend to stick in the throat of a man who has been a citizen of this country for twenty-two years.
And why is it that when you are all here today to honor me as Hispanic Officer of the Year, I look around a room full of ranking officers and the only other Hispanics I see are waiters and busboys? As far as I am concerned, you can keep your award!
Oct '10
Re: Presidential Math, Or David Brooks, Wrong Again
I took the quiz and discovered the good news that we only need to win 11 states to get 270: California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina and New Jersey. There's your winning strategy.
Jul '10
Re: Presidential Math, Or David Brooks, Wrong Again
Salma Hayek for Vice President.
Central American Hispanics don't like Cubans. But everybody loves Salma.
Edited on Apr 15, 2011 at 4:40pmNov '10
Re: Presidential Math, Or David Brooks, Wrong Again
Well, I'm on record as to how the GOP can win the Wolverine State...
Re: Presidential Math, Or David Brooks, Wrong Again
Scott Reusser: "Assume GOP candidates carry Ohio..."
Well that was easy! :)
I hope you're right, big guy, but Kasich's got some work to do.
The 49 other states? Details, mere details. · Apr 15 at 3:29pm
Talk to me about Ohio, Scott. What do the numbers indicate? What's your feeling? I've been assuming--from the distance of California--that Kasich would be able to turn his numbers around in plenty of time, maybe even by this summer. Silly?
Re: Presidential Math, Or David Brooks, Wrong Again
Ah, but I'm not "just assuming." I am reasoning that someone who's first language is Spanish, who has demonstrated an ability to win support among non-Cuban Hispanics in his home state, and who has taken a stand on immigration that would frustrate certain members of the Ricochetoise but not, I hazard, Mexican-Americans--I am reasoning that such a candidate could enable the GOP ticket to carry perhaps 35 or 40 percent of the Hispanic vote in Colorado and either New Mexico or Nevada.
That's plausible enough, no? Diane? Kenneth? Elizabeth? Stuart?
Edited on Apr 15, 2011 at 5:16pmRe: Presidential Math, Or David Brooks, Wrong Again
Stuart Creque: Without having gone to the mentioned website, I can tell you why David Brooks said that Obama will win easily, and why Brooks will continue to say that until reality forces him to admit otherwise.
Brooks has a deep and abiding faith in the wisdom -- nearing infallibility -- of those educated in the Ivy Leagues. · Apr 15 at 3:41pm
David can only harbor that touching faith because he attended the University of Chicago. Here at Ricochet (Rob Long, Yale; Peter Robinson, Dartmouth), we know better.
Re: Presidential Math, Or David Brooks, Wrong Again
Peter Robinson
Ah, but I'm not "just assuming." I am reasoning that someone who's first language is Spanish, who has demonstrated an ability to win support among non-Cuban Hispanics in his home state, and who has taken a stand on immigration that would frustrate certain members of the Ricochetoise but not, I hazard, Mexican-Americans--I am reasoning that such a candidate could enable the GOP ticket to carry perhaps 35 or 40 percent of the Hispanic vote in Colorado and either New Mexico or Nevada.
That's plausible enough, no? Diane? Kenneth? Elizabeth? Stuart? · Apr 15 at 5:14pm
Let's hope you're right, Peter. Perhaps simply being able to communicate in the same tongue will do wonders to spread his message.
Feb '11
Re: Presidential Math, Or David Brooks, Wrong Again
Going to David Brooks for conservative wisdom is like going to Frances Kissling of Catholics for Free Choice for a Catholic view on abortion... although he isn't quite as offensive. It must be that nice pink shirt he wears in his headshot at the NYTimes...