Obama reelection 2012

[bryanbutler]

you can put up all the maps you want, but i'm telling you from being here that it's gonna go obama unless something very strange happens. if you don't want to listen to that, that's fine...

[Bob Kohm]

New Mexico has long been the Democrat leaner in the mountain west. That being said, map makers like U Va are putting it as toss up or a lean Democrat.

I think I said this in another thread, but you have to be very careful with any product coming out of Larry Sabato's shop at UVA these days-- he's taken what was one of the best PoliSci tanks in the academic world and turned it into a bias op that's starting to look like it's on the road to Zogby-hood. Sabato has a tremendous ego and seems to be gratifying it by driving the data rather than reporting it.

[Bob Kohm]

For outfits like Iran, mines are as likely to take out their own ships as those of other nations.

I think you're making a few bad assumptions here, Ray. First, Iran's ability to sow mines effectively and quickly far-- FAR-- outstrips our ability to remove them. Iran's Kilo and mini-subs are optimized for sowing minefields in the Strait and our minesweeping capability is practically zero-- the Navy just doesn't find it sexy to build small, slow, wooden hulled boats to handle the counter-mine role, leaving the job to wildly ineffective helicopter towed sleds and the one or two decrepit sweeper hulls that they maintain. Mining the Straits would probably shut them down for two to three weeks at a minimum. And no, they are not at all likely to sink Iranian hulls-- they're likely to blow large holes in a tanker or three before the Strait is totally closed to shipping in or out.

As for provoking the US or Israel into a strike, I just don't see it. If they haven't provoked Israel into action yet, I don't think they'll be able to do it now when it's so obviously designed to be "nationalism inspiring". Israel plays its own game, sometimes to good effect, sometimes not. I don't see the US being provoked, either. We can flatten Iran's military without major trouble, particularly their air farce and navy, so why do it at a time of THEIR choosing?

This is the time of Israel's choosing, but we won't let that dog off of the leash we hold on its resupply and advanced weapons capacities. Firing missiles at tankers *will* provoke a limited American strike on their shore batteries. An airstrike against a tanker will cause us to take out the fields in easy reach. A series of bombings in Israel that they/Hizbollah are clearly responsible for will provoke an Israeli response, as will a round of massive rockets firings. Terror attacks in the States or against US targets will provoke a response. You don't think they've already provoked Israel and the US into attacks? How about the assassinations/bombings of the nuclear facilities over the last couple dozen months? If Iran takes a shot at a US CSG or even gets in close with a minisub and opens torpedo doors there's going to be a response. No, if Iran wants to be attacked they damn sure can get attacked.

Oh, and by the way-- we absolutely can not "flatten Iran's military without major trouble". They have absolute first-rate air defenses, a huge nation to play shell games in (remember how hard it was in 1991 to find SCUDs in open desert? As Frank suggests, go look at the topos of Iran), and a large corps of irregular forces that can wreak havoc globally.

The most likely scenario IMO--Iran blows up one of its own ships and/or ports and blames it on the US and/or Israel, which yawn and say, "Is that all you got?" The EU sucks up to Iran, Russia and China do the usual blame game, the American left as always assumes the worst about us and Israel and makes a lot of noise, and nothing winds up happening. Sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Highly unlikely, imo, for just the reason you state-- it is unclear as to who the bad actor is just as it is in the assassinations and bombings. No, if Iran needs to rally round the flag they're going to do it by provoking a real US/Israeli/Euro response which nobody can question the reality of. To the Ayatollahs and Mullahs the sacrifice of strategic military capacity or even massive damage to strategic and economic targets a la Baghdad is nothing compared to holding power. If the past twenty one years have made anything clear it is that if you hunker down you can ride out the storm and hold onto power in the aftermath. It would be a painful decision, but not as painful as the abandonment of the idea of a Shi'a Caliphate.

[onejayhawk]

I think I said this in another thread, but you have to be very careful with any product coming out of Larry Sabato's shop at UVA these days-- he's taken what was one of the best PoliSci tanks in the academic world and turned it into a bias op that's starting to look like it's on the road to Zogby-hood. Sabato has a tremendous ego and seems to be gratifying it by driving the data rather than reporting it.

I dont doubt the ego. You can see it every time he is on TV.

In this case the map is conveniently small. Here are a gazillion more.

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=2012+election+map&view=detail&id=50C5172895E4A3A7EEFBEB3AB13CECA0D1D66E88&first=0&qpvt=2012+election+map&FORM=IDFRIR

This is one I have been looking for a while. It shows the EV impact of the census.


J

[Wonderboy]

You know, the map you posted in post 451 is really pretty encouraging for Obama. If 247 already lean Dem, then he just needs 23 electoral votes out of the toss-up states with 85. The GOP needs 64 of those 85 votes, or a whopping 75% of them. A lot has to go their way to get them to 270, especially when you consider Obama carried all of those toss-up states in 2008.

And with unemployment now down to 8.3%, Obama's narrative that we are on the right track seems to get stronger.

[onejayhawk]

You know, the map you posted in post 451 is really pretty encouraging for Obama. If 247 already lean Dem, then he just needs 23 electoral votes out of the toss-up states with 85. The GOP needs 64 of those 85 votes, or a whopping 75% of them. A lot has to go their way to get them to 270, especially when you consider Obama carried all of those toss-up states in 2008.

And with unemployment now down to 8.3%, Obama's narrative that we are on the right track seems to get stronger.

It should be. It is against a generic opponent. Against Romney he has a real problem winning any of the yellow states, but all he needs is Florida, or Ohio and Virginia. Also, some of the powder blue states maight go to nuetral. Michigan comes to mind.

J

[Wonderboy]

It should be. It is against a generic opponent. Against Romney he has a real problem winning any of the yellow states, but all he needs is Florida, or Ohio and Virginia.

I think you are way overestimating Romney, who currently looks very beatable. But we shall see. In any case, Romney almost has to win Florida and Ohio just to get within striking distance. And even if he pulls that off and wins those two, he's just 6 or so electoral votes ahead of Obama.

It can certainly happen, but I'm just saying a lot more has to fall into place for Romney than Obama. He's almost in a position where he has to carry 3 out of 4 states that Obama carried last time.

[nots]

I think you are way overestimating Romney, who currently looks very beatable. But we shall see. In any case, Romney almost has to win Florida and Ohio just to get within striking distance. And even if he pulls that off and wins those two, he's just 6 or so electoral votes ahead of Obama.

It can certainly happen, but I'm just saying a lot more has to fall into place for Romney than Obama. He's almost in a position where he has to carry 3 out of 4 states that Obama carried last time.

I think you are right on target--the electoral math just isn't very good for Romney. Obviously a lot can change, but right now it's an awful lot easier to see how President Obama gets to 270 than Gov Romney.
What do you think about Bhob's Bloomberg thoughts?

[onejayhawk]

I think you are way overestimating Romney, who currently looks very beatable. But we shall see. In any case, Romney almost has to win Florida and Ohio just to get within striking distance. And even if he pulls that off and wins those two, he's just 6 or so electoral votes ahead of Obama.

It can certainly happen, but I'm just saying a lot more has to fall into place for Romney than Obama. He's almost in a position where he has to carry 3 out of 4 states that Obama carried last time.

Romney is very beatable, just not by other Republicans. The nomination is in the bag, short of a catastrophic event.

November is a different story. The race is President Obama's to lose. That is the nature of having an incumbent. So far Obama has done a decent job of losing the election, but only enough to say it will be a fight. You can see that from the map, since is not favored for more than 270 EV.

I will say this about Obama's opponent. Among the candidates the GOP put forward, Romney has, far and away, the best chance of pulling it off.

J

[nots]

I agree with most of that, OJH. I think the problem is, while Romney is the best of the field, most people think that field is pretty weak. I'd be very inclined to vote for a Republican this time, but given the field, it really isn't an option for me.
I'd be surprised if there weren't quite a few people that feel that way.

[onejayhawk]

I agree with most of that, OJH. I think the problem is, while Romney is the best of the field, most people think that field is pretty weak. I'd be very inclined to vote for a Republican this time, but given the field, it really isn't an option for me.
I'd be surprised if there weren't quite a few people that feel that way.

Perhaps. I think it is closer to the truth if you say that most activist Republicans believe so. If you get away from the base, he comes across better. If Romney has a chance, it will among the casual Republicans, the independants and the moderate Democrats.

J

[GwynnInTheHall]

I agree with most of that, OJH. I think the problem is, while Romney is the best of the field, most people think that field is pretty weak. I'd be very inclined to vote for a Republican this time, but given the field, it really isn't an option for me.
I'd be surprised if there weren't quite a few people that feel that way.

This is exactly how I feel. Obama has disappointed, but the guys the GOP are running out there are about as adept as I am in managing finances. They all suck, well Huntsman was close, but Romney? gimme a break he's worthless and Newt, he's the far lefts wet dream. Sorry GOPers-you're gonna be stuck with Barrack who's the best republican in the contest.

[Moonlight J]

Best Republican, indeed



If he was as bad as the right makes him out to be for business, I would expect far different results

[GwynnInTheHall]

Best Republican, indeed



If he was as bad as the right makes him out to be for business, I would expect far different results

Cue the Fat Lady.:dance:

[Kevin Seitzer]

Good article by James Fallows assessing the strengths and weaknesses of Obama as president:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/03/obama-explained/8874/1/