Skip to main content

This is what it looked like in 2008. What will 2012 look like?

Political junkies don't have an "off year," of course. Many of us are already looking ahead to the state-by-state analysis of the 2012 presidential elections. Oh, sure, some of you might try to buzzkill by gently pointing out that we don't have anything close to a GOP nominee yet, or you may point to the calendar to remind us that the presidential election is still fifteen months away.

That said, it is useful to see what the landscape might look like in 2012. And the polling crew over at Gallup offered us a nice resource to do so earlier this week.

Every summer, Gallup aggregates their presidential job approval numbers for the first half of the year, and then break them down by state. It is a wide pool of interviews to draw from (90,000 over the six-month period), and offers us a look at several states that have seen scant polling thus far.

Now, I will be the first to admit that this is much more of an intellectual exercise than an infallible measurement of the state of the electoral map. After all, these interviews were culled over six months, and any public sentiment in January (or early May, post-OBL) certainly do not factor into where the public stands now, let alone where they will stand in November of 2012. Plus, the Republican nominee will undoubtedly factor into the calculus. If it is a fractious affair, or they nominate one of their trainwreck candidates, then the president can win even with subpar job approval.

That said, there is some merit in looking at these numbers. Historical analyses have long held that there is a pretty decent connection between an incumbent president's job approval and their basic fortunes as they seek reelection. Only Truman earned reelection with sub-45 percent job approval, and George W. Bush is one of the few others that has done so with sub-50 percent job approval.

Plus, there is some interest in seeing if the president's job approval numbers in some McCain '08 states merit consideration for addition to the target list. Conversely, it is also worthwhile to explore if any states in the Obama 2008 coalition appear to have drifted out of reach.

So, with that in mind, let's start with the baseline. Barack Obama sailed to the presidency in 2008 with a 365-173 victory in the Electoral College. Does that mean we start at 365 electoral votes? Well ... no, actually. The vagaries of the reapportionment process has already altered the map. If the president won exactly the same coalition of states (plus Nebraska's sole electoral vote from NE-02), he would now be sitting on a 359-179 victory.

Let's start with the following scenario based on the Gallup data. Let's give the president every state where his net job approval is either neutral, or in positive territory. In other words, let's only give the GOP those states in which Obama's job approval, as measured by Gallup, is underwater.

Under that scenario, President Obama loses the following states out of his 2008 coalition: New Mexico, Virginia, Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, Oregon, Indiana and New Hampshire.

We will, based on the 2008 disparities between NE-02 and the rest of the state, assume that Obama does keep that one electoral vote. Furthermore, he actually picks up a state from the McCain coalition, and it is a big one. His approval, according to Gallup, was actually in positive territory in Georgia.

Under that scenario, Barack Obama would be reelected by a 302-236 margin in the Electoral College:

Scenario #1: States distributed based on positive job approval for Barack Obama

BARACK OBAMA (302 EVs): California (55), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), District of Columbia (3), Florida (29), Georgia (16), Hawaii (4), Illinois (20), Iowa (6), Maine (4), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (11), Michigan (16), Minnesota (10), Nebraska (1), New Jersey (14), New York (29), North Carolina (15), Pennsylvania (20), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), Washington (12), Wisconsin (10)

REPUBLICANS (236 EVs): Alabama (9), Alaska (3), Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Colorado (9), Idaho (4), Indiana (11), Kansas (6), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (8), Mississippi (6), Missouri (10), Montana (3), Nebraska (4), Nevada (6), New Hampshire (4), New Mexico (5), North Dakota (3), Ohio (18), Oklahoma (7), Oregon (7), South Carolina (9), South Dakota (3), Tennessee (11), Texas (38), Utah (6), Virginia (13), West Virginia (5), Wyoming (3)

Don't get me wrong, I have my doubts about the GOP claiming a few of those states where Obama's first-half job approval was underwater. I don't see them claiming Oregon, to be sure, and I'd make the president a betting favorite in Colorado and Virginia, as well. That said, I am also skeptical of the president snagging Georgia, though with Atlanta in the mix, I suppose it is mathematically possible.

Let's switch gears now and go with the most pessimistic scenario: that President Obama only claims those states where his job approval currently sits at 50 percent or better. Under that theory, undecided voters haven't been swayed yet, thus they are unlikely to be swayed at all. I am a skeptic on this point, as well, but for the sake of seeing the worst-case calculations, let's run the numbers.

Under that scenario, Georgia reverts back to the GOP coalition. Several states in the Dem coalition join Georgia on the GOP side: North Carolina, Florida, Pennsylvania and Iowa (he'd also cough up the one EV in Nebraska). Thus, the electoral college would then float over to the challengers, as the GOP would claim a 307-231 lead in this variation on the electoral college:

Scenario #1: States distributed based on positive job approval for Barack Obama

BARACK OBAMA (231 EVs): California (55), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), District of Columbia (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (20), Maine (4), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (11), Michigan (16), Minnesota (10), New Jersey (14), New York (29), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), Washington (12), Wisconsin (10)

REPUBLICANS (307 EVs): Alabama (9), Alaska (3), Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Colorado (9), Florida (29), Georgia (16), Idaho (4), Indiana (11), Iowa (6), Kansas (6), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (8), Mississippi (6), Missouri (10), Montana (3), Nebraska (5), Nevada (6), New Hampshire (4), New Mexico (5), North Dakota (3), Ohio (18), Oklahoma (7), Oregon (7), Pennsylvania (20), South Carolina (9), South Dakota (3), Tennessee (11), Texas (38), Utah (6), Virginia (13), West Virginia (5), Wyoming (3)

This scenario actually underscores one of the key structural advantages that the Democrats are gaining in the electoral college. In this scenario, President Obama would claim roughly 47 percent of the popular vote. He would lose 34 of the 51 contests at the statewide level. And he'd still be within striking distance (any coalition of 2-4 large states would do it) of winning reelection.

Where is the current state of the landscape? Perilously, it is probably somewhere in the middle, which means that President Obama is right on the precipice of victory or defeat. The four states he loses in the more pessimistic scenario are all key states, and they are all states where at least one poll in the past month or so has shown the president trailing a GOP challenger. However, as I stated earlier, I can also see 29 electoral votes in the GOP coalition in this analysis that are more likely that not to stay Democratic (CO/OR/VA).

Examining where President Obama's net job approval has shifted the most off of his margin of victory or defeat in 2008 yields some interesting results, though most of the results are of dubious value.

The reason? Most of the biggest shifts occur as a result of moderation of opinions in states that either went sharply for or against Obama in 2008. Therefore, three of the five states that drifted the furthest away from the president (Hawaii, Rhode Island and Vermont) are almost certainly going nowhere. Likewise, three of the five states where the president's approval numbers are better than his election totals in 2008 (Louisiana, Alaska and Oklahoma) are on absolutely no Democratic target lists.

That said, there are a few states to watch. According to Gallup, President Obama's public esteem in the potentially competitive Rocky Mountain region has taken a hit. Obama is considerably weaker in several states out west, along with one notable example in New England:

Marginal shift between 2008 election totals and 2011 job approval

Oregon: Obama -21 (from 57/40 in 2008 to 44/48 in 2011)
New Hampshire: Obama -21 (from 54/45 in 2008 to 40/52 in 2011)
New Mexico: Obama -16 (from 57/42 in 2008 to 46/47 in 2011)
Nevada: Obama -16 (from 55/43 in 2008 to 44/48 in 2011)
Colorado: Obama -13 (from 54/45 in 2008 to 44/48 in 2011)

Given that the president was elected in 2008 with 53 percent, and now sits in the mid-to-upper 40s in job approval, targets are a little harder to come by. The two best targets appear to be Georgia (47/52 in 2008; 48-44 now) and Arizona (45/54 in 2008; 44/48 now). Both South Carolina and South Dakota are also closer to parity than they were in 2008, so don't be surprised if they get at least some discussion next year.

The bottom line, as we have known for some time, the goal for team Obama is likely going to be preserving the 2008 coalition, rather than expanding it. Those are just the realities of running for reelection in what has to be described as hostile circumstances. The good news for the president and his supporters: The math, even at a very low ebb in his support, does not preclude a second term. In fact, he might still be a slightly better than 50/50 prospect to win reelection, based on this state-by-state examination.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  It will come down to the Midwest... (15+ / 0-)

    Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan...maybe Pennsylvania.

    "I'm a white male, age 18 to 49. Everyone listens to me, no matter how dumb my suggestions are." --Homer Simpson

    by dhshoops on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 04:05:29 PM PDT

    •  He needs to focus on the BIG 3 (11+ / 0-)

      I have faith that once obama starts campaigning and drawing out the contrast between him and the opponent the voters will come to their senses.

      He needs to explain in stark terms the diffence between a PResident Obama and President Romney/Perry/Bachmann fixing SS/Medicare/Medicaid

      President Obama will fix the big 3 where it will be solvent for the next generation and that means not throwing grandma off a cliff. It means cutting out waste fraud and abuse and tweaking it so that it won't go broke.

      President Bachmann or Perry or Romney means gutting it and getting rid of the entire programs.

      BIG DAMN DIFFERENCE!!

      Seniors better wake up and fast cause if any GOP take over all of the three branches, kiss GOODBYE your life.

    •  Yay! (7+ / 0-)

      Obama wins, so we can look forward to four more years of Republican framing and memes, social safety net programs on every fucking negotiating table, and continued derision from the Administration about liberal "children" needing grown-ups to do the real work.

      I can't wait!

        •  I can't speak for Penman...but (10+ / 0-)

          I won't be doing anything for Obama.  In 2008, I overcame my desire for another candidate, then donated to Obama, called others to vote for him and lastly voted "for hope".  What I have now leaves me "hopeless".  No, I've already said no to the Obama for America solicitation.  Obama's problem is not going to be liberals voting for a Republican, because we aren't going to do it.  The problem he faces is that many of us are coming to the conclusion that we can focus our energies on real progressives, allow Obama to go down the drain--fight the Repug for 4 years and come back to the table with a real progressive (or someone not so happy to negotiate away progressive issues).

          After all, what's the difference between a Repug taking away Social Security, Medicare or Obama negotiating it away?  I'd rather go down fighting the Repug than be seen as blessing these Right Wing policies.

          You can count me as done with Obama.  I won't be giving aid to the enemy (the Repugs)--but Obama has already proven he is not on my side.

          •  But.. fear fear fear, not his fault, excuse excuse (6+ / 0-)

            Step aside Obama --any other Democrat in 2012

            by Freedom Of Thinking on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 06:07:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  This kind of hyperbole (7+ / 0-)

            is worthy of FOX.  

            "After all, what's the difference between a Repug taking away Social Security, Medicare or Obama negotiating it away?"

            Obama did not "negotiate it away."  Too many here seem unaware or unable to admit that NOTHING HAPPENED to Medicare of Social security in the debt ceiling deal.

            There is an argument to be made that he shouldn't have put forward the compromises he did.  But they were far from the MANY comments here about Obama taking away negotiating away or killing these entitlements. That's what the GOP is trying to do---no wait, they're trying to privatize it all because that would be another nuclear money bomb for their constituency.

            For Pete's sake we accuse the right of lack of subtlety and unwillingness to look at the facts, but many here are equally guilty.  

            The changes he proposed were not insignificant and worthy of fair debate, but this is not fair debate.  He also said no revenue increase, no tickey.  And there was no tickey.

            We'll count you out for 2012, no problem.  It will be less trouble than trying to get you to put things in perspective. But trust me on this---if the GOP wins another administration, you'll FINALLY know the difference.

            •  I "FINALLY" knew the difference... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mcartri

              ...thirty years ago.

              Obama's first term is already compared with Herbert Hoover's only term. Obama is, credibly, likened to the man that is credited with causing the Great Depression. And the criticism of those of us that say we won't vote for Obama next year (Wisconsin here), is to trust you, "if the GOP wins another administration, we'll FINALLY know the difference."

              Well, yes, thank goodness it's not yet as horrifying as it can get. And of course, bow down, Obama may not have got us  undoing any of the horrors of the past thirty years, he's only just continuing them, and be grateful he's not advancing them quite as fast.

              Good distinction, but what's the difference?

            •  Not to mention 'fighting the repug for 4 years'... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mcartri

              With what? Rightous indignation?

               And who is this magical progressive that will ride in on a unicorn?

              it tastes like burning...

              by eastvan on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 08:35:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  A real progressive will never win the white house (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Blu Gal in DE, ScottDog, Matt Z

            Just like a teabag won't.....You have to win the middle of the country. This country isn't progressive nor ultra conservative and until you progressives understand that you will continue to be disappointed.

        •  That argument is a reason to go ahead and vote (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wsexson

          for the other guys.

          As long as politicians refuse to take any responsibility for actually doing something good for the nation, so long as they are content to rely on "Well the other guys are worse", the value of our votes erodes steadily away.

          It's hard to avoid in a two-party system, but forcing the issue to be "what have you done for me" instead of "how scared am I of the other guys" is a tiny step in building the power of those votes back up.

          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

          by dinotrac on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 06:19:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Or the alternative - (20+ / 0-)

        Yay! Perry/Romney/Bachmann wins. Social Security gets turned into a Wall Street hedge fund. Medicare becomes a worthless voucher program. Medicaid goes away completely. Taxes will go down (if you're a millionaire). Federal Lands and all coastal waters will be leased to Exxon. Supreme Court will get a couple more right-wing activists (bu-bye Roe v. Wade - Hello permanent status for DOMA). We'll get lot's of new shiny jets and missiles and DOD contractors will live like kings. ETC.

        But at least the WH won't say insulting things about progressives - we'll be completely ignored.

        I can't wait!

        If Liberals hated America, we'd vote Republican.

        by ord avg guy on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 04:41:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sadly, I've got some news for you. (5+ / 0-)

          Those contractors? They're still "living like kings" off continued and, in the case of Afghanistan, increased engagement. Social Security and Medicare have been placed on the table for so-called "reform" and "cuts". Taxes have  already gone down for millionaires when President Obama extended George Bush's tax cuts for "the elite, er, his base". The Supreme Court is 5-4 crazy wing nut and there are no strong voices in Washington fighting against the war on women's rights that has been waged by the GOP for the last two decades. The current WH ignores progressive policies and ideas and the people who present them. Federal lands and coastal waters are as vulnerable now as they ever were. Medicaid is already endangered because states are broke and people aren't making any income on which to pay taxes.

          Of course I don't want a President Bachmann or a President Perry and it's not going to happen. But neither will I ever again in my lifetime (I'm 40) place so much faith, hope, money, time and effort into a politician who promises "change", delivers none, and tells me I'm "whiny", "impatient" or "sanctimonious" when I ask why.

        •  Elections come every two years. (0+ / 0-)

          The whole House, one third of the Senate, and a slew of state offices.  A President who goes to far off the reservation will quickly find his or her hands tied.

          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

          by dinotrac on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 06:20:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Riiiiiiiight. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Khun David, fizziks

            I remember that well with GWB.  Yeah, that guy sure was handcuffed when he went off the reservation.  It only took eight years to be done with him.  What a relief it wasn't any longer and your theory worked so well.

            •  There was that little matter of 9/11 (0+ / 0-)

              It did change the math a bit.

              But ... Democrats took over Congress in 2006 and, yes, that did handcuff him, just as 2010 handcuffed Obama.

              LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

              by dinotrac on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 07:04:24 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Like the current one? (0+ / 0-)

            Sure is slam dunk easy for the President to get stuff through Congress now isn't it?

             Which is why many things got through the 111th Congress...
            The 112th? Not so much.......

            it tastes like burning...

            by eastvan on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 08:52:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Yes (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ord avg guy

          Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

      •  Obama loses and then what? (15+ / 0-)

        Do you have some magical plan to lead us to paradise? Maybe you should ask your self why the Tea Party framing is gaining steam. This people are fucking serious, to them it is a war. Whether you are happy with Obama or not fight for other progressives who will be on the ballot in 2012.

        It is time we start pushing their own meme and stop waiting around for a politician. Remember when we were all about bottom up and grassroots? Getting sick of all the negativity.

        •  Obama's megaphone (7+ / 0-)

          is worth all the DKers combined x 1M.

          If he doesn't advocate for basic liberal and progressive principles, we are fucked for decades.

          And--I don't know if you've noticed--Obama isn't.

          He think taxes need cutting.  He thinks the safety net needs "constraining."  He thinks compromising with nuts is "moderation" and "bipartisan."

          If he loses--and he probably will--the MSM will say that Democratic policies failed to restore the economy.

          And who can argue with them?  DKers with their little fantasy "grassroots" movements will be a drop in the bucket.

          And to answer the questions about "my plan":  Step one is to tell the fucking truth about our situation, and right now that truth is the Obama is doing progressive, liberal principles not one fuckshit bit of good.

          •  Yeah that OBAMA SUCKS! (7+ / 0-)

            you tell um Penman.

            Me, I can't wait to vote again...for Obama.

            "This country was founded on compromise. I couldn't go through the front door at this country's founding" - President Barack Obama

            by AAMOM on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 05:01:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  really? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Blue Wind
              "Me, I can't wait to vote again...for Obama."

              you are excited to vote for him again?
              seriously? you are happy about the way the last 3.5 years have gone?

              well, then you must be one of the lucky few who haven't been ravaged by the state of the country.

              •  absolutely (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                etherealfire

                me and 60 million other friends.

                "This country was founded on compromise. I couldn't go through the front door at this country's founding" - President Barack Obama

                by AAMOM on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 06:39:50 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  whatever (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Blue Wind

                  you try to tell me that things have been so great for so many, and I'm going to call you a jerk.

                  people are suffering and you don't care. HR me all you want, but i think it's disgusting.

                  •  HR (0+ / 0-)

                    I will and did HR you. For calling someone an "a&#hole" for saying that he would be proud to vote for the Democratic incumbent candidate president. Number 1, name-calling and ad-hominem attack. Number 2, isn't this site about more and better Democrats? I'm not sure how you can support this site and get furious at someone for saying they will vote for the Democrat in the next election.

                    "Sentiment without action is the ruin of the soul." --Ed Abbey

                    by progreen on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 01:12:20 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  sorry (0+ / 0-)

                      but you are just that if you think people should be excited about another 4 years like the last 4 years.

                      people are suffering. you would rather cheer-lead about a person's political fortunes instead of understand that people are suffering badly.

                      •  Dude (0+ / 0-)

                        You need to stifle yourself with insults like that. Maybe he's excited to go vote Obama to stick it up the ass
                        of whomever the GOP nominee is. That thought cross your mind? I have a daughter unable to find full time work, she has to settle for 20 hours a week at one of the local grocery chains here. We're not happy, however
                        the facts are this country just doesn;t have enough progressives who come out and vote religiously enough
                        to make the difference. Its as simple as that. Obama can't game plan to an electorate that he can't count on.

              •  I can't wait either (0+ / 0-)

                Yes, I'm excited to vote for him. I didn't expect any more than what has happened. I blame Bush for the bad economy, the Republicans for hijacking Congress and forcing through an extension to the Bush tax cuts and potential changes to Medicare and Social Security, and the Blue Dog Democrats + Joe Lieberman for giving us a watered-down healthcare bill and an insufficient stimulus. And I blame Obama for not publicly pushing for more of a stimulus, for not rolling back the concentration of government power, for not prosecuting Bush & co., for not prosecuting Wall Street, and for the treatment of Bradley Manning. He's made plenty of mistakes. But this was the guy elected on the basis of a speech that went: "there is no red America, or blue America, this is the United States of America." He ran as as a unifier- I'm not surprised or disappointed by his attempts to unify the country, negotiate, or compromise.

                I didn't expect a panacea, and I didn't expect a liberal. I read the man's policy positions, and he has followed them. He is who I expected.

                At the end of the day, we're back in 2000. Remember "Al Gore, corporate wh*re"? Remember how a vote for Ralph Nader was supposed to make the next Democratic candidate more liberal, how 4 years of Bush was going to usher in public support for a true progressive candidate?

                How'd that work out?

                "Sentiment without action is the ruin of the soul." --Ed Abbey

                by progreen on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 01:24:45 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  First Obama has to win the primary (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jeopardydd

              Obama approval today drops to 39%. It will only get worse as what can he run on, new promises? lol.

              Pay back Obama with a NO vote in the primary.

              Step aside Obama --any other Democrat in 2012

              by Freedom Of Thinking on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 06:13:51 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  now you're just lying (0+ / 0-)

            look, I'm as disappointed in Obama as anyone, but he does not think that taxes "need cutting".  He has stated clearly that his preference is for the Bu$h tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans to expire.

        •  I'm reccing both you and pen mans (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Phil S 33, djbender, jeopardydd, progreen

          response.

          I can't see a credible left of Obama primary challenge doing anything but strengthing the GOP.

          But he has been weak as shit.

          Seriously: Grow some and fight for us!

          And yes, a progressive Congress is what we really need.

          218 congressmen 61 Senators and a President.

          We can save our country by electing the right 280 people.

        •  Then WAth? The U.S. becomes a Theocracy (0+ / 0-)

          Eery republican running for president, except for Huntsman & Romney are religious right nuts, and Paul just does not count. If any of them win, they will make their religion the law of the land instead of the consittution.

      •  what's your point with this comment? (10+ / 0-)

        instead of trying  to but cute (fail) and witty (fail) and to garner up some mojo (??).
        explain instead how four years under the insane, deranged,, destroy america GOP is acceptable in your eyes because you cannot abide the Democrat, Barack Obama.
        your comment is   silly and truly has no point.
        but it is a good example of how sitting around and typing comments a blog.
        is leading one towards the path of "dude, someone stole my brains."

        Yay! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        badgerbadger
        Obama wins, so we can look forward to four more years of Republican framing and memes, social safety net programs on every fucking negotiating table, and continued derision from the Administration about liberal "children" needing grown-ups to do the real work.

        I can't wait!

        by Penman on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 07:27:03 PM EDT

        [ Parent | Reply to This |  Recommend   Hide ]


         * [new] Yay!! (1+ / 0-)

        "Oh no...you changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Mom ♥ 12.25.2007 ------- A true sportsman is a hunter lost in the woods and out of ammo. ~Robert Brault

        by Christin on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 04:52:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Ironic uprate (9+ / 0-)

        unless the uprater is not a Badger from WI -- a state which many of us worked our asses off to switch seats to Democratic -- a state where I, not a Badger, am still phone banking for Tuesday.  I guess the bottom up approach to address local problems still leaves some to want to undermine the top.

        And this comment in and of itself is utter crap.  Carry on with your self-indulgence because, well . . . speaking of Republican framing.

        Vi er alle norske " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

        by gchaucer2 on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 05:30:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  EVERYBODY PANIC (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Matt Z
        Obama wins, so we can look forward to four more years of Republican framing and memes, social safety net programs on every fucking negotiating table, and continued derision from the Administration about liberal "children" needing grown-ups to do the real work.

        Oh no, framing and memes!

        Can our country---nay, our species---endure four more years of abstract things that irritate bloggers and political wonks?

        Linking to a news article is journalism in the same sense that putting a Big Mac on a paper plate is cooking.

        by Caj on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 10:07:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Probably the main reason that (18+ / 0-)

      Voter Suppression Laws are being enacted in those states.  Prevent enough Democrats from casting a vote and the states become red.

      Rethuglicans play long ball.  I'm sure that this has been in the works for a long time - in fact, the main reason for so much money in the 2010 elections.  They wanted serious Republican takeover of the swing states to permanently change their ability to elect Democrats.

      There already is class warfare in America. Unfortunately, the rich are winning.

      by Puddytat on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 04:33:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Florida (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      scott5js, Nulwee, vidanto, Odysseus, Matt Z

      Illinois, Indiana, and most likely Wisconsin and Michigan won't be factors in 2012.  If we lose Wisconsin and Michigan, we've likely lost the election.  If we lose Illinois, we've obviously been destroyed.

      But Florida could very well be the key state.  You can add NC, OH, and PA in addition to FL.  These swing states could be the toughest, yet most crucial for us to hold.  But all you need is one of them if we can keep our advantage out in the west and VA.

      The reason FL so crucial is it gives us major breathing room.  If Obama wins Florida, he can afford to lose IA, VA, NC, OH, PA, IN, and NH.

      The current map also tells you a lot about the changing demographics of this country.  Formerly red states are becoming purple and turning blue.

      States next to turn...Georgia, Arizona, and yes, Texas, though that will be some years down the road.

    •  Won't be close massive landslide (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nulwee, vidanto

      for Barack.  What you have to remember Steve, is that one, he has such unusual demographic advantages he over polls his approval, and two, if you combine his approval with disapproval not liberal enough he is near 60.  This is a center left country.  If the economy does anything at all, his charisma will pop him over 50 and a landslide will ensue.

    •  Bad news from an employment and real (0+ / 0-)

      estate standpoint.

      We all know Michigan has been absolutely walloped, and Illinois is a train wreck as well.

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 06:15:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Agreed....and at least four of those states (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Odysseus, Matt Z

      have radioactive GOP Governors that no Republican nominee with a brain ( I know -- there may not be one... ) would share an appearance with.

       Not to mention Texas is changing....and Parry trails there apparently....

      it tastes like burning...

      by eastvan on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 08:27:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The National Popular Vote Bill Could Change 2012 (0+ / 0-)

      In 2012, The National Popular Vote bill could guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

      Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn't be about winning states.

      When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes-- enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.

      The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

      The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA ,RI, VT, and WA . The bill has been enacted by DC, HI, IL,CA, NJ, MD, MA, VT, and WA. These 9 jurisdictions possess 132 electoral votes-- 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

      http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

  •  All This Talk About the Gov. Not Job Creating (7+ / 0-)

    How many actually have followed what came into their states as to the recovery funds, i.e. stimulus, that wasn't enough but did stop the collapse and helped local communities as well as small businesses around the country.

    Lets just look at the recent on three states in the very recent news:



    Now in many places, like Texas, this is just the recovery funds, much more came from the Federal Government over these past couple of years as to FEMA and the devastating storms and droughts that are affecting their states and residents.

    And many of these have or are running out as the projects are completed or have been completed.

    No wonder so many pols ran to the ribbon cuttings etc. and had their media photo's taken while attempting to take credit for all that cash and those community saving jobs, even helped prop up their state budgets that were in the red and going deeper!

    You can find plenty, especially if your state media aren't covering it, more at the Federal Recovery.gov pages.

    CCR:"If you're a torturer, be careful in your travel plans. It's a slow process for accountability, but we keep going."

    by jimstaro on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 04:07:47 PM PDT

  •  A bit optimistic with Pennsylvania... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Penman, Heart of the Rockies, Eddie L

    Ohio is certainly gone already.  Cleveland and Cincinatti won't be enough to save him this go around.  My entire family in NE Ohio, Republicans all, voted for Obama, mostly because McCain was too old and too much of an ass.  

    They've watched another two years of job losses and factory closures and they blame Obama.  Right or wrong, they are going to vote or anyone else who resonates with them....be it the nutty Bachman, or the dangerous Rick Perry.

    Sad, but that's the way most voters are..fickle and uninformed.

  •  Georgia looks better due to a rapidly (13+ / 0-)

    growing Hispanic population. I hope he pulls this one out-

    Harry Reid winning in NV with the 2010 turnout lead me to believe he can win Nevada.

    Some people are working every day on concrete issues of jobs, wealth, power and justice. And some people are discussing Osama bin Laden's civil rights or who is "deracinated" - Citizen K

    by joedemocrat on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 04:15:12 PM PDT

  •  Assuming Tournout Supports His Approval. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nulwee, wsexson

    Which didn't happen for at least some of his coalition last fall.

    Hang onto 1 branch for 4 years of vetos, while we punt to the middle of the decade before we can even think about a solid win.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 04:15:21 PM PDT

    •  See, that's just it. (0+ / 0-)

      "Which didn't happen for at least some of his coalition last fall."

      HIS coalition, huh? Apparently you don't consider yourself part of that coalition, and didn't last fall either.  Boy, one things for sure, this is no longer the site Kos once envisioned. Hell, I don't even know if he envisions it anymore.

      And I don't understand your second paragraph.  Are you suggesting we should throw the race, yet hang on to one branch?  Please clarify.

  •  Here's a crazy idea: Secretary Clinton for VP! (10+ / 0-)

    Think about it:

    First, it sets her up as his "heir apparent".

    Second, it rebuilds his street creds as a liberal.

    Third, it pretty much locks up the feminine vote.

    IMHO, we need to start pushing for this NOW.

    •  P.S. (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ljb, joedemocrat, Nulwee, vidanto, Matt Z

      My wife loves the idea. In my household, that's pretty rare....

    •  no no no no no no no. (6+ / 0-)

      no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no

      Let us resolutely study and implement the resolutions of the 46th Convention of the Democratic Party!

      by Rich in PA on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 04:25:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  "Locks up the feminine vote."? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RVKU, Nulwee, fizziks

      What does that even mean?

      That Bachmann's husband will vote for Obama/Clinton?

      •  It means all the women will vote for you (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wsexson, fizziks

        ...just because you have a female VP candidate.  

        You know, just like we elected John McCain in 2008, and Walter Mondale in 1984.  Because women are zombies.

        Linking to a news article is journalism in the same sense that putting a Big Mac on a paper plate is cooking.

        by Caj on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 10:12:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I think that all libs/progs... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nulwee

      can agree with that, even if they really don't -- think of the title:

      President Bachmann!!

      AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! ANYTHING BUT THAT!!!

      :)

    •  Why would she do it? Why would he want her to? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      scott5js

      1. Too early for heirship.
      2. Joe is a liberal ... And doesn't seem to turn as many people off as Hillary used to. Don't get me wrong; I'm not adverse to her. She's had a very rough go at State. I think she wouldn't want the VP job even if it did have the potential of a job-in-waiting. Besides, Hillary was a red flag for the Right. Do you really think that's what Obama wants to wave in this next campaign?
      3. So otherwise, women will vote for ... For?

      Obama and strong Democratic majorities in 2012!

      by TRPChicago on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 04:33:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Right Wing loves to hate Hillary (0+ / 0-)
        •  I dunno. I've gained a lot of respect for her. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Odysseus, Matt Z

          Can't  quite put my finger on why, but I thought very little of her during the Clinton Presidency -- especially after booting the health care issue.

          Senator Clinton, however, seemed to be a very serious student of the national needs, and Secretary Clinton seems appropriately smart and tough.  I know longer think of here as little more than a coat-tail rider.

          I am probably not what you mean when you say right wing, but I am a conservative and I've know other conservatives who professed a grudging respect for her as well.

          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

          by dinotrac on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 06:28:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  aaaaaahhhhhhhh. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fizziks

            Oh, what a relief.  You are a conservative! Wow.  Not many here have the nerve to admit to that, although I suspect we have our fair share of democrat pretenders here.

            Thanks for being out in the open with it.  But may I ask, and not with hostility, why are you here?  What do you get out of it?  

            •  An assertion, not an admission. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Matt Z

              Been coming here nearly 4 years.

              I'm a great believer that spending all our time in an echo chamber is a great way to remain ignorant and intellectually lazy.

              Besides -- some of the people who call themselves conservatives these days are just plain nuts.

              For example:

              I can understand people scratching their heads on the climate.  I spent more than  a year working very hard to understand the issues and still don't believe that I have a proper understanding.  I know that liberals and environmentalists go off the deep end sometimes, but I also know that global warming ain't a hoax, but an urgent problem that we have to address.

              Let me ask you: would you rather have those discussions here or on red state?  I may have serious disagreements on policy prescription here, but at least the conversation is taking place.

              LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

              by dinotrac on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 05:52:23 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Thank you for your honest reply. (0+ / 0-)

                Sorry for the delay in my reply, lot's of things going on, and it was just tonight that I wondered if you had replied to me, and checked.

                And, I wouldn't come near red state again with a ten foot pole. Couple of visits there assured me views from a democrat would not be appreciated, and would be a waste of my time.  In fact, I think I would have been banned within minutes.

                I'm glad that this site has allowed you to be here for 4 years, without banning you for your conservative views.  And, I respect you for getting out of the echo chamber.

                I agree with you on climate change.  And maybe in the days to come, we will find more we agree on.  To be honest, I don't bother talking to most republicans today.  Seems hopeless that the discussion is worth the time in the bloodless civil war this country is currently engaged in.

                But again, I DO respect those conservatives who engage here with honesty about who they are.  We have, imo, a fair amount of sock puppet fake progressives---republicans being paid to post, or doing so our of their own passions.

                There can be no HONEST DISCUSSION, without the most basic honesty.  You have cleared that bar for me.  Here's to future conversations.

        •  they hate Obama more (0+ / 0-)

          Step aside Obama --any other Democrat in 2012

          by Freedom Of Thinking on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 06:32:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  What kind of Right Wing? (0+ / 0-)

          I am not talking about principled opposition to some of Hillary's positions. I am talking about people who call her endearing names like Hildebeast, Hitlery, and PIAPS. People who think she murdered Vince Foster.
          I live in Houston but in 2000 I got fundraising letters from all 3 candidates for US Senate from NY. Those from Giuliani and Lazio would open with a line about the dread prospect of having Hillary Clinton as US Senator.

      •  I was against Clinton in 2008 (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cheerio2

        and still would be today. That said, Clinton is one of the most popular-polling figures in America. Her time as SoS and a candidate won her a lot of conservative support.

        "Hahai nō ka ua i ka ululā'au" -- Hawaiian proverb.

        John Boehner? The sleaze bucket who hands out bribes from big tobacco on the House floor?

        by Nulwee on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 05:46:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Strongly for Obama in 2008, I didn't like Hillary, (0+ / 0-)

          ... and I thought she stayed in the race, when the electoral handwriting was so clearly writ, far longer than she should have. Bill's intemperate campaigning didn't help, either.

          But as SoS, I think Hillary has been doing a marvelous job. Like Obama, she's been handed a large dish of [deleted] to deal with and she appears to be working through it resolutely and competently. They're restoring respect the US lost so widely throughout Bush II's reign. That alone is a heckuva an achievement.

          She turns 64 this fall. She looks tired from all the challenges, understandably, and word was that she'd be leaving it at the end of Obama's first term. So I doubt that she'd accept VP in order to set up heirship, an exhausting campaign for President in 2016 when the GOP will be down and dirty as they surely will be after four more years of Barack Obama.

          Nevertheless, stranger things have happened in politics. And both Clintons love a campaign! Besides, I'd enjoy seeing the looks of apoplexy on the faces of my Republican friends [I'm workin' on 'em] if Hillary became VP ... and an heir!

          Obama and strong Democratic majorities in 2012!

          by TRPChicago on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 05:42:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  He should want her as VP because white (0+ / 0-)

        women will decide the election, and Clinton would carry that group as well as spike turnout of the same.

        It is very likely that the Right will have a white female candidate on the ticket, top or bottom.

        "The attack on the truth by war begins long before war starts and continues long after a war ends." -Julian Assange

        by Pierro Sraffa on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 05:51:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  1 for 3 (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      happymisanthropy, Nulwee

      Setting Hillary up as heir apparent is a bad idea.

      Clinton is no more liberal than Obama is

      Yes, Clinton would help with women.

      BUT .... if Obama wants to pick a NY woman for VP, i suggest Kirsten Gillibrand.  

      Founder Math and Statistics Geeks . Statistics for progressives

      by plf515 on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 04:35:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Would be a good move (0+ / 0-)

      Clinton would be a good foil for Obama (remember the Obama vs. Clinton choice in 08? Two very different candidates) and she would shore up some of his weak points. JoeB is cool but he doesn't really do much for the ticket.

  •  I know we'll do tons of these exercises (8+ / 0-)

    between now and the election (how very wearying!) but
    this far out anything could happen, including traumas,
    scandals, either further economic collapse or sudden economic gains, and on and on.

    O, it is excellent to have a giant's strength; but it is tyrannous to use it like a giant." --Shakespeare, Measure for Measure

    by Wildthumb on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 04:17:53 PM PDT

  •  These are not the states he'll lose (8+ / 0-)

    Obama's going to have some difficulty with Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, and unless he makes Medicare and Social Security an issue -- which he should -- Florida's perpetually in danger (the reins of the electoral process are suspect). That said, I think he could pick Ohio back up, and Colorado and a few other "newly blue" states should be OK.

    However, running by "approval rating" is not necessarily the smartest play, even though it reflects the conventional wisdom. Obama's got to take a page out of W's 2004 playbook and get ready for some carpet-bombing aggressive campaigning -- attack the GOP for choosing Corporations over People, Wall Street over Medicare and Social Security, and play the Osama card as much as possible and then some.

    This may not be a purist approach but it's a winning one.

    Some people are intolerant, and I CAN'T STAND people like that. -- Tom Lehrer

    by TheCrank on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 04:18:06 PM PDT

  •  Swap VPs: Biden for Clinton (8+ / 0-)

    I really do love Joe Biden. But remember Obama's Hillary voter problem in the primaries? If he can persuade Joe to step down for health reasons or somesuch, and put Clinton on the ticket, he's going to energize a part of the electorate in the traditional Democratic coalition that might decide to sit this one out.

    I did enough canvassing in swing states, in person, to know that there was a chunk of swing voters who voted for McCain instead of Obama largely due to their personal identification with Clinton and the perceived diss she got.

    Some people are intolerant, and I CAN'T STAND people like that. -- Tom Lehrer

    by TheCrank on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 04:21:54 PM PDT

  •  If this is the basis for worry, I won't worry (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nulwee, vidanto
    Marginal shift between 2008 election totals and 2011 job approval

    Oregon: Obama -21 (from 57/40 in 2008 to 44/48 in 2011)
    New Hampshire: Obama -21 (from 54/45 in 2008 to 40/52 in 2011)
    New Mexico: Obama -16 (from 57/42 in 2008 to 46/47 in 2011)
    Nevada: Obama -16 (from 55/43 in 2008 to 44/48 in 2011)
    Colorado: Obama -13 (from 54/45 in 2008 to 44/48 in 2011)

    Since those approval numbers include many people at low-to-zero risk of voting for the actual opposing candidate, I don't see any of those states as being especially in play for Republicans, at least not for that particular reason.

    Let us resolutely study and implement the resolutions of the 46th Convention of the Democratic Party!

    by Rich in PA on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 04:22:23 PM PDT

  •  Once the ... (15+ / 0-)

    ..2012 campaign season begins, & Obama begins to make stump speeches & hold political rallies, he will coalesce & energize his voting & begin to run away from the GOP nominee.

    What I don't understand is all these in-depth analyses of Obama's re-election chances never add into the equation his biggest asset:  The ablility to make stirring speeches.

    Obama will bury Romney, Bachmann or any other nutjob the GOP nominates via one method & one method only:   Superior oratorical ability.

    I bitch about Obama as much as the next Kossack, but the average citizen does not give a crap about capital gains taxes and a revenue enhancement rider attached to a piece of legislation Al Franken is submitting to the  Appropriations Committee.  

    They just want to hear a president (or presidential candidate) give a speech that makes them feel good about being an American.

    While on the 2012 campaign trail, the GOP nominee will (of course)  traffic in lies & hate & Obama bashing.  The Tea Party wants to hear this bullshit.  America at large, however, will find it loathsome.

    That, in & of itself, provides Obama an automatic 10 point bump in his approvals, no matter how bad the ecomony is.

    When Fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in excess body fat and carrying a misspelled sign.

    by wyvern on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 04:27:33 PM PDT

    •  Sorry, I'm tired of the speeches. (3+ / 0-)

      His line of BS and "stirring speeches" just don't cut it for me and many others any more. Truthfully, I just tune Obama out any more just like I did Bush. He'll be running on his record and too many people are hurting. The fact that he even entertains the issue of Social Security being on the table for deficit/budget negotiations does it for me. I'm an old fashioned guy, once you lie to me, I no longer trust you.

      So he can gather the folks around and try to give them the old BS, but without jobs, in fear of losing Social Security and Medicare and given his history of continuous cave ins to the GOP, his talk is overshadowed by his lack of walk.

      I'll work and vote for progressive down ticket Democrats, but right now I'm a no show for Obama.

      •  GOOD. (8+ / 0-)

        that'll show us!

        "This country was founded on compromise. I couldn't go through the front door at this country's founding" - President Barack Obama

        by AAMOM on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 04:56:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Obama's campaign... (9+ / 0-)

        ..speeches will not be meant for you & me.

        It will be meant for people who only pay attention to politics every 4 years...when a presidential election rolls around.

        If you are tired of speeches, then cover your ears when either Perry, Bachmann or Romney takes the podium next summer.

        The 2012 GOP nominee will be prone to release the vilest speeches in the history of American presidential elections.  

        Serving as slave to the Tea Party caucus, the 2012 GOP presidential nominee will bombard this country with the most despicable effluvium to ever escape the mouths of American political actors.

        When Fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in excess body fat and carrying a misspelled sign.

        by wyvern on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 05:05:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I am so tired of this BS (6+ / 0-)

        Don't mistake me for someone who is thrilled about the manner in which Obama has played many issues.  I am actually pissed about the manner in which he assumes the right-wing rhetoric.  I am less critical of him on governing because I think he's up against a House led by lunatics and a Senate without a filibuster-proof majority.  But I'd like to see stronger leadership, and I'd like to see more people-centered policy positions. So let's get that out of the way.

        My main point -- it is ABSOLUTELY INSANE to sit out the presidential vote because you're disappointed with the president.  The other side is dangerous and unhinged -- and I mean ANY of the GOp-ers who might end up with the nomination.  This sort of absolutist bullshit of not voting for the less than stellar Democratic option is what yielded George W. Bush in 2000.  In 2000,  some people though there was no difference between Bush and Clinton's deputy, Al Gore.   Oh we all know about florida and SCOTUS -- but none of the swing states -- Florida, Ohio or New Hamp -- would have been as close as they were had it not been for the  Bush=Gore contingent.

        Well, thanks so much for the eight year nightmare earthquake that got dumped on the nation.  We're only getting aftershocks now.  Obama, for all his faults, is our firewall against the insanity of another Republican presidency.   A non-vote for Obama is a vote for the likes  of Rick Asshole Perry and Michelle Lunatic Bachmann.

    •  Bingo. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      etherealfire, Matt Z

      Obama's not really campaigning right now, and unless there's a huge fiasco in the Congress he's not even been in the news much since OBL bit the big one.

      "Hahai nō ka ua i ka ululā'au" -- Hawaiian proverb.

      John Boehner? The sleaze bucket who hands out bribes from big tobacco on the House floor?

      by Nulwee on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 05:57:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Ya think? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vidanto, Nulwee, Matt Z
    Plus, the Republican nominee will undoubtedly factor into the calculus.

    Bachmann or Perry gets the GOP nod and all these numbers go out the window. Most of my family are diehard conservatives, and even THEY think these two are beyond the pale.

  •  Scenario 3 (10+ / 0-)

    Bachmann is the GOP nominee. Obama wins 45 states.

    Founder Math and Statistics Geeks . Statistics for progressives

    by plf515 on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 04:28:06 PM PDT

  •  I'd like to discuss, but you're using data from... (3+ / 0-)

    ...Gallup, therefore I'll just choose to move along. :)

    I have very little confidence in joke polling organizations such as Gallup, whose polling swings wildly from day-to-day with no basis in reality.

    Plus there's the incredible fact that they were the only pollster in 2008 showing BOTH McCain and Obama winning the election by double-digits.

    Gallup is a joke. No one should take anything they report seriously.

  •  I'm not so sure polling based on the first six (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CanyonCritter, Nulwee, wsexson

    months of this year are going to give an accurate reflection of Obama's chances of re-election given that his approvals are in a downward spiral and his diapproval ratings are skyrocketing.

    The first six months of 2011 average approval clocks in at 47% and that is the basis on which these calculations are made (albeit broken down to a state-by-state basis).

    The latest gallup tracking poll has Obama at a 39% approval and a 54% disapproval, and this is just the latest of a steady downward trend.

    If this trend continues, all bets are off on Obama's chances of re-election.

     

    •  You make one mistake though... (7+ / 0-)

      ...You're taking Gallup seriously.

      Remember this stat: They were the ONLY polling organization to show both McCain and Obama winning the 2008 election by double-digits.

      They are trash.

      The reality of the situation is that the President's approval -- and favorability -- is holding steady.

      •  Well if you can't take Gallup seriously then (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Nulwee

        this entire diary is pointless as it is based on Gallup polling. Moreover, even if the actual numbers may not be entirely accurate, the trend is unmistakable.

        People have a tendency to discount polls and polsters who tell then things they don't want to hear.

        The Republicans made this mistake in 2006 and 2008 and it proved disastrous. Their state of denial meant that they did not take the steps necessary to avert a negative outcome.

        Democrats do the same now at their own peril.

        •  I've already said that... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          vidanto, Nulwee, etherealfire

          Also, there is no trend with Gallup. That's the problem with them.

          Don't forgot they actually had Democrats LEADING the generic ballot last summer against Republicans. Their generic ballot question was up/down/up/down just like with their tracker.

          They are a very poor polling organization and should not be taken seriously.

          Here's the reality: If you look at the most recent polls (ABC/Washington Post, Democracy Corps., FOX and CNN) and compare their results to their July surveys (June in the case of ABC/Washington Post) the average was 46/49 in July vs. 44/50 in August. A 3-pt shift. Well within the margin of error.

          Gallup, on the other hand, is trying to claim that the AVERAGE of their 3-day rolling sample changed by a negative SIX points in today's release a day after they showed their tracker with a positive 1-pt change.

          Do you understand the shift that would have to occur for a 3-day tracker to go from +1 to -6 in one day?  

          It's outrageous that people actually take them seriously.  

          •  thanks for this info (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            etherealfire, Matt Z

            I just don't understand Gallup. And why do a daily poll anyway. Their monthly poll with USATODAY had him at 45/50.

            "This country was founded on compromise. I couldn't go through the front door at this country's founding" - President Barack Obama

            by AAMOM on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 05:10:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Actually the other polls are also showing a (0+ / 0-)

            downward trend.  For example, according to Democracy Corps which you mention, Obama has gone from 49% approva/ 45% disapproval to 46% approval/48% disapproval to 45% approval/50% disapproval.

            That's a definite downward trend.

            Or are they trash too?

          •  Fox news polls also show downward trend (0+ / 0-)

            in Obama's approval rating with numbers not so different from the Gallup tracking poll.

            The latest Fox News poll shows just 44 percent of voters would reelect Obama while 42 percent approve of his job performance and 48 percent disapprove.

            Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/...

            .

            Obama's numbers, even in the polls you cite, are dropping.

            So is the Fox News poll trash too?

          •  ABC/Washington Post Poll also shows (0+ / 0-)

            downward trend:

            Obama’s overall job ratings were 44 percent approval and 46 percent disapproval in the new poll, both down from three weeks ago, when he was at 47 and 48 percent, respectively.

            Or is the ABC/Washington Post Poll trash too?

            Face it: the numbers are going down and they range from 44% approval to 39% approval in the different polls. These are not good numbers.

      •  Well, not as bad as Ras (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Williston Barrett

        It is true that Gallup is very imperfect, and it is also true that trying to predict an election 15 months way is a fool's errand.  However, just dismissing Gallup's data out of hand is not a good idea either.  Over the long term, the only data that is even remotely predictive of presidential re-election is the Gallop approval/disapproval number.  See Nate Silver for more on that.

  •  Georgia (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nulwee, Matt Z

    could go D

    1) It wasn't THAT Repub in 2008 52-47 for McCain
    2) The Repubs anti-immigration idiocy is on more display here than elsewhere.

    Founder Math and Statistics Geeks . Statistics for progressives

    by plf515 on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 04:32:07 PM PDT

  •  Team Obama.....WTF is that? (0+ / 0-)
  •  I fervently hope that you are correct. (4+ / 0-)

    As much as I have been disappointed by Pres. Obama, the Repub alternative should not even be considered.

    Let's give Pres. Obama victory in 2012 and a majority in the Senate and the House.  If he does not do well under that scenario, then let's judge his performance then .

    "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win". Mohandas K. Ghandi

    by Randolph the red nosed reindeer on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 04:33:01 PM PDT

  •  I will have nothing but pity and contempt (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    v2aggie2, vidanto, Nulwee, etherealfire, Matt Z

    for any LGBTQ who (god forbid) actually casts a vote for Bachman.

    Godwin nods knowingly upon hearing her unspun rhetoric as presented on MTP.

    She is an affront to rational thought, and her invective must be taken as a clarion call for all those who purport to stand for human rights.

    tl;dr  she's an asshole throwback to the darkest of ages

    She was only a whiskey maker, but he loved her still.

    by wretchedhive on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 04:36:21 PM PDT

  •  Listening to Rick Perry on (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Delilah, vidanto, Nulwee, sja, etherealfire, Matt Z

    CNN. Perry sounds like bush's backwater cousin. he just said "dud nit" as in doesn't it....and he is gesturing like..uh..a clown with dips and stuff.

    Obama must be the luckiest guy ever. This week America saw the real GOP - Bachmann and Perry. wow.

    "This country was founded on compromise. I couldn't go through the front door at this country's founding" - President Barack Obama

    by AAMOM on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 04:37:03 PM PDT

  •  I hope I can share 2 thoughts, none meant as (6+ / 0-)

    attacks on your clear and largely well-reasoned presentation.

    1.  You state:  

    Only Truman earned reelection with sub-45 percent job approval, and George W. Bush is one of the few others that has done so with sub-50 percent job approval.

    I don't want to start a pie fight nor be flamed/slandered as "tinfoil hat".  I have to point out that there were "issues" in OH in 2004, clearly corruption at best and important safeguards, including saving of ballots were willfully and flagrantly breached despite state laws.  There were people that went to prison over these.  

    I won't proclaim the 2004election as "stolen", but urge people to keep their minds open and not dismiss criminality on the part of bush/cheney/rove.  If there's anything we should have learned from the bush reign of terror, they are capable of crimes most would dare not imagine.

    If we don't have free, open, transparent, verifiable elections, any analysis of expected outcomes based on past is meaningless.  PEACE - don't want to start a pie war!

    2.  You do clearly indicate that its early, we all know that, given the deteriorating economic situation, incumbents could have serious disadvantage in Nov 11.  

    Not meant as criticism, but feel compelled to point out that you state:  

    Let's switch gears now and go with the most pessimistic scenario: that President Obama only claims those states where his job approval currently sits at 50 percent or better. Under that theory, undecided voters haven't been swayed yet, thus they are unlikely to be swayed at all. I am a skeptic on this point, as well, but for the sake of seeing the worst-case calculations, let's run the numbers.

    Perhaps I missed it, but IMHO, reasons for your skepticism would be helpful.  I am not calling you out and don't expect you to answer me.  I merely want to suggest that your reasons might be very important for others to appreciate.

    3.  Obama clearly has had polls that indicate his approval rating has fluctuated and dipped below 45%

    I don't trust rasmussen, but should point out that they appear to have approval below 45%

    I commend you for pointing out that readers should be cautious with this analysis, and merely intend to point out that depending on what point of time is used and what poll, Obama (even by your analysis if I understand it) could be in deep doo doo if the approval rating in mid-late 2012 is below 45%

    That is when the negative ads start coming, no one is optimistic about a turn around in the economy, and I have heard talk we may still be stuck in the endless quagmires in the Middle East - not going to help approval.

    ~peace

    When you find yourself surrounded by alligators, it is time to realize your job is to drain the swamps!

    by badgerbadger on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 04:38:02 PM PDT

  •  No Way is Oregon voting GOP in 2012! (9+ / 0-)

    You can move them back in the Obama column.

  •  Good diary. You're right. He should still (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nulwee

    be the favorite. Over any of the Rs, although I think Perry is the first real challenger. I've heard people say Perry is a crazy man. Irrelevant. He will unify the R base in a way Bachmann and Romney could not.

    People here should understand he is considered a moderate in the GOP today. He's the moderate they've been looking for.

    I did dispute the diarist saying he'd make him the betting favorite in VA. If that is true, this election will be over by 8pm PST, because if he takes VA, he'll also (don't you think?) take OH, PA, FL?

    •  laught if you will (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      trickamsterdam, Nulwee, Matt Z

      but jeb bush could stroll onto the stage late in the process or at brokered convention and take nomination.

      Sounds impossible!  So did an AWOL cokehead of one-term president bush sr being a credible candidate, but once he was in, all money left every other candidate.

      I know - lost of skeletons in jeb's closet, but there are still lots of them in w's closet and an AWOL brat became a "war president".

      I believe it is likely we will see jeb fraudulently hoisted on the American public as the "smarter bush" at some point in time (LOL as funny as it may seem)

      This will play well to the "nascar dads" (barf!) and what other purpose can the current batch of dimwits serve but to eventually make jeb appear a more rational choice (compared to teabaggers).  Note: some here use the same type of argument that only rational choice is to support obama, our "best" and only choice even if a person sees him as ineffective.

      No way in hell is US electing another texas governor - they will not even listen to him speak with the same accent/mannerism of w.

      Remember, the teaparty is a sham and both sides (and msm) give it far too much attention/credibility.

      ~peace and please eat pies instead of throwing!

      When you find yourself surrounded by alligators, it is time to realize your job is to drain the swamps!

      by badgerbadger on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 04:57:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  No, I don't agree. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lostinamerica, Odysseus

      I don't think VA is as blue as everybody else here thinks it is.  I think VA went hard for Obama, and it was a fluke.  Obama can lose VA, and still win the election.  If the election were held today, I think NH, AZ, OH, CO, VA are red, and PA, MI, FL, WI, MN, and OR are blue, and Obama could survive.  I don't know about NC or NV.  This discussion about GA, I don't buy.  It depends on voter turnout ... and the GOP in GA know how to influence minority Dem turnout.  I guess I'm just to old to believe ...

  •  Obama's job approval is below 40 percent (6+ / 0-)

    How does that factor into your thinking?

    •  Oh no! Frick. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nulwee, LordMike

      I think a high degree of vigilance is in order and nothing can be taken for granted.  Even in 2008, after eight years of abuse by Bush and the GOP, McCain was still briefly up on Obama in the polls.  And let's not forget the flood of right wing 527 ads which aired nonstop in battleground states leading up to election day and tightened the race significantly.  

  •  Too many variables at this point (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JClarkPDX, lostinamerica, Nulwee

    Economy, further capitulations, and the opponent make it foolish to try to predict.

  •  Truman's approval rating was at 50% (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    EthanR, Nulwee

    by election day.

  •  For another analysis with electoral maps (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nulwee

    along similar lines

    this diary from back in January

  •  Obama Is Best When He is Campaigning (7+ / 0-)

    He is a better candidate than President. Now that he has been in office he will not generate as much enthusiasm so any margin of victory will be smaller.

    But the GOP has major problems of their own making. This makes Obama the best President we can get this time. I just wish he would do more to live up to the hype we heard in 2008.

    Help! The GOP is NUTS (& the Dems need some!)

    by Tuba Les on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 05:04:28 PM PDT

  •  NC... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nulwee

    Don't count on NC; repugs control the legislature and the repug governor candidate is out-polling our Dem governor; and there is still a voter ID bill on the table with a chance of passing. Repugs are already on the air with ads against the President, too.

    "Lets show the rascals what Citizens United really means."

    by smiley7 on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 05:14:24 PM PDT

  •  Did Any Of Y'all Watch The Loser Repug (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nulwee

    debate?  It was scary, and I seriously doubt that anyone would vote for a Bush clone or Michelle Bachman.  If Romney is the nominee President Obama will have to work hard.  SNL will stick a fork in Perry in their playup of Perry being George W. Bush clone.

    "Don't Let Them Catch You With Your Eyes Closed"

    by rssrai on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 05:19:04 PM PDT

  •  Does THIS possibly change things? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lostinamerica, Nulwee, jeopardydd

    Not that I believe politico is a great source and I don't remember if Quinnipiac University polls are reasonable.  I am NOT endorsing this source or poll, but:

    President Barack Obama's approval rating is under water in blue state New York, 45 percent to 49 percent, according to a new Quinnipiac University poll.

    It's a massive swing from June, when the numbers were 57 percent positive and 38 percent negative.

    Then there's an update same link, provided below:

    It's the first time, Halperin notes, that the president has ever gotten a negative number in the Empire State. And the trend is clear in other recent polling in the state.

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/...

    ~peace

    When you find yourself surrounded by alligators, it is time to realize your job is to drain the swamps!

    by badgerbadger on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 05:35:29 PM PDT

  •  I think the GOP will sweep the South (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Odysseus

    and reclaim Indiana and Ohio. There's just not enough time to turn the economy around before November 2012.

  •  Perry and Bachman are gifts (0+ / 0-)

    We aren't running against the generic republican. End of story. This is still a choice election.

  •  Oregon isn't in doubt (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nulwee, LordMike, pademocrat, sja

    Obama's down in the polls here because of our high unemployment. But Democrats have a 10 point registration advantage and a second to none GOTV operation. And with vote by mail, there's strong turnout. Even last year, all the incumbent Dems were reelected to the national Congress, and Kitz was elected to a third term as Governor.

  •  if the election is about Obama or Crazy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z

    he may win even with 35% approval

    what a time we are living in - a complete collapse of any credibility for the GOP

  •  If this were any other election year... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, Matt Z

    ...and there was a relatively moderate (for them) Republican candidate, Barack Obama would be toast. But with all the nut cases now seeking the GOP nomination (and especially Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann) and the extremist positions they have taken, I'd say President Obama is in pretty good shape even with his bad numbers in some places. I can't wait to start drawing the contrasts between our president and the very likely looney bin opponent he will face.

    The people united will never be defeated.

    by alaprst on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 06:10:56 PM PDT

  •  I'm convinced, we need a 2nd party in the US (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chrississippi, Odysseus

    Not a third party, just a second one.   Right now we have some principled democrats and then a hunta on the other side.

    Americans are really getting the crap end of the stick.   Even if I completely disagree with the conservative position, a good debate of real conservative perspective benefits democrats and republicans by forcing both to have a principled argument.

    Right now, you have democrats... and you have lunatics.

    Can you imagine an Ike running today?
    Hell, I can even think of 80s Republicans that would get run..

    The 10 to 1 pledge and they all pass?  Reagan let tax incentives lapse and gave a speech on "paying fair share" would St. Ronnie get run?

    The worst thing for us right now is that there is no real second party, so as much as people grit their teeth over Obama, there is nothing else really out there.

    What this country desperately needs isn't as much a set of democratic presidencies.. though that may not hurt.. but what it needs is for a truly reasonable, old school Republican to come out of the woodwork, say they are prochoice and get that argument dead and gone and move the debate to real issues where disagreement helps strengthen the arguments of both sides.

    Right now, we're in a death spiral of being forced to chose between bah and insane.   Unless there is a viable 2nd party in the US, we're screwed

    Having Hope and using action to give people hope are different things. Make a difference for someone.

    by Chris Reeves on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 06:26:38 PM PDT

  •  the reason obama won't win (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chrississippi

    all a republican has to do is say:

    "do you want another 4 years like the last 4?"

    and Obama will lose, because most people do not want that.

  •  What's the difference? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, Nisi Prius

    If our only choices are 0bama or some other extreme right-wing corporate boot-licker, then no matter who "wins" in 2012, America loses. They all have a different song-and-dance routine, but they are all completely owned and controlled by the ultra-wealthy corporate fat-cats. The electoral process is a sham. It's exactly like "American Idol". We the People don't get to vote for our government's policies, all we get to do is select the next celebrity spokesmodel for the fat-assed corporatist scumbags who are gleefully raping, pillaging and plundering what's left of the United States. 0bama is a crook and a louse, just like Cheney and Bush. If Perry wins in 2012, nothing changes but the window-dressing.

  •  Since Russ Feingold is not in the GOP (0+ / 0-)

    The president is the only game in town.  I am not happy with him.  But I will vote for him.  And I will work for and contribute to progressives at all the other levels of government to try to keep him honest and to build a strong progressive movement from now and beyond, not just 2012.

  •  Totally bogus analysis (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike

    Elections are between people, not numbers. The state of play will not be known until the GOP candidate is known.

  •  Disturbing... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike

    ...that Obama failed when he had the wind at his back right after his election to find himself, and his Party, not looking forward to historic gains at the end of this first term. What a miserable president Obama is.

  •  in the last recent diary of (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, Odysseus, Matt Z

    Alan Grayson he gave us his perspective of Florida elections 2010 his conclusion was - WHEN DEMOCRATS DON"T SHOW UP TO VOTE - DEMOCRATS LOSE.....

    it was nice diary with all the facts and figures and comparison..... sorry don't have URL handy - but it was special

    There’s something wrong with our politics that we need to fix. - President Obama, August 11, 2011

    by anyname on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 08:13:27 PM PDT

  •  Oregon: I seriously doubt we are going to vote... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sja, Odysseus, ddn, joe from Lowell

    ...for batshit crazy in 2012.  One of the bluest states in the union is not going for Michele Blaaahchmann or Mittens the Kitten or any of those other ass hats.

    "Always remember this: They fight with money and we resist with time, and they’re going to run out of money before we run out of time." -Utah Philips

    by TerryDarc on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 09:43:14 PM PDT

    •  I remember reading a column in '08 (0+ / 0-)

      where a blogger was wondering whether Palin's selection as VP would help Mccain in Oregon and Washington due to their "close proximity to Alaska". I'm not making that up. Whoever that was didn't have a friggin' clue.

      •  No solidarity with ALaska as far as I can see... (0+ / 0-)

        ...born in the state and lived here for many years, I can't say that Alaska has ANY cache here in the Beaver State. Washington maybe, California the least little bit even though they are all viewed as crazy and Idaho? Meh.

        We are our own state and NW US is as close as you can get to some sort of communal feeling. Alaska? Don't make me laugh.

        "Always remember this: They fight with money and we resist with time, and they’re going to run out of money before we run out of time." -Utah Philips

        by TerryDarc on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 05:53:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Right. This diary only looks at Obama. (0+ / 0-)

      There's going to be another candidate in the race, and it's going to be someone out of the political mainstream.

      Or, it's going to be Mitt Romney, who is an absolutely awful campaigner.

      Art is the handmaid of human good.

      by joe from Lowell on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 07:07:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm More Interested in Congress (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Odysseus, ddn

    What does Gallup say about Congress? Congress is obviously where the real power is, just based on what we've seen the Republicans do with it.

    What we really need is a progressive majority in the House and enough progressives in the Senate to prevent any anti-progressive legislation from forming there. Then, we can move progressive legislation through Congress and even a Republican President would be forced to sign it, if he wanted to see a budget.

    The real place for progressives to put their energy is into Congress over the next few years. That's how to change the conversation and start repairing some of the damage that our radical opponents have caused.

  •  Georgia & S.C.? (0+ / 0-)

    People who routinely vote Repug but are not part of the activist base will be will more charged up to vote than their Democratic counterparts.   Obama's   new rock star glamor is gone, & it has a "been there done that" quality anyway.  & the Repug nominee doesn't even have to get into specifics of what he or she will do other than promise to repeal "Obama-this" & "Obama-that"  & to never raise taxes on anyone, & not say anything about Medicare in Florida. We know now how flukey Wisconsin & Minnesota are. Are more than 50% & 270 electoral votes worth of voters ready to cut their own throats voting Obama out? Yeah, I think America is that suicidal right now.

    "There ain't no sanity clause." Chico Marx

    by DJ Rix on Sun Aug 14, 2011 at 10:56:24 PM PDT

  •  Georgia? (0+ / 0-)

    "His approval, according to Gallup, was actually in positive territory in Georgia."

    The poll must have included Atlanta only. Anyone who thinks Obama can carry Georgia (outside of Atlanta) is dreaming. I live in south Georgia and it's bright red.

    Redistricting in favor of republicans is in process. That combined with the backward conservatism here guarantees that Obama will loose Georgia no matter who the republican candidate is.

  •  I predict Obama wins reelection with... (0+ / 0-)

    fewer electoral votes than he won when he was first elected, making him the first to do so since FDR in 1940 an 1944.

    His map will shrink a bit and look like a slightly-expanded version of Kerry's.

    Art is the handmaid of human good.

    by joe from Lowell on Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 07:05:44 AM PDT

  •  CA OFA is gong to turn AZ & Nv blue again (0+ / 0-)

    OFA in CA will be doing grassroots work to turn NV & AZ Blue like we did in 2008.

  •  Nev, Col, NM, Mich, PA, WI, MN, NH, (0+ / 0-)

    To me those eight states are the ball game for the election. if he holds them I can't see how any GOP candidate can win.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site