Obama chief strategist David Axelrod and campaign manager Jim Messina pledged to take the same numbers approach to the 2012 campaign that former campaign boss David Plouffe famously used in 2008. And in surveying the electoral college map, they have gamed out several regional strategies to help them clear the threshold of 270 Electoral College votes
Now folks Im a NUMBERS guy. I have been fascinated with numbers and systems to win in sports gambling,blackjack,horse racing and of course the stock market .My acumen has helped me avoid having to go to work and achieve financial independence.
I am fascinated with this upcoming presidential election and like I said last week it is clear to me it will be between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama
I am going to analyze Obama’s 5 paths to victory and in the next week or so, I will analyze the most critical states in order of importance.
Many hard core conservatives believe Romney has no chance against Obama.
This series of articles will evaluate that “hypothesis”.
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) earned a total of 251 electoral votes in 2004, but due to redistricting, the states he won now carry a total of 246 electoral votes.
Kerry won 19 states and the District of Columbia.
4 of these plans ASSUME Obama wins all 19 of these states .His advisers have identified 5 paths to victory
Lets examine them individually
1)”West Path.” If Obama wins all 19 states Kerry did and adds Colorado (and its nine electoral votes), New Mexico (five) and Nevada (six) and adds them to Kerry’s 246 electoral votes, he would have 266. Add in the six electoral votes from Iowa, where Obama has been leading the polls (but Republicans have been making voter registration gains), and he’d have 272.
2) “Florida Path” Obama wins all 19 states and Florida’s 29 votes which gets him 275 and the win
3) The third path is the “South Path,” which involves winning North Carolina (and its 15 electoral votes) and Virginia (13) to Kerry’s total to reach 274
4) The fourth path is the “Midwest Path” which involves adding Ohio (and its 18 electoral votes) and Iowa (with its six) to Kerry’s total to get to 270 on the nose.
5) Finally, there is the “expansion path,” which has the president losing critical states but still winning the election by bringing others in the fold. Under this scenario, the reelection campaign doesn’t hold on to Kerry’s wins in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire, losing their 20 and four electoral votes respectively. He also fails to win Ohio and Florida, both of which he won in 2008. But by re-winning Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and adding Arizona (with its 11 votes),Obama gets to 272
Of course these are just “theories” but interesting enough all assume Obama winning Michigan,where Romney grew up and his dad was governor. Certainly that is no “gimee”
Lets look at each path and see which one’s are more likely than the other
1) Path 1 seems to be 3th most likely plan to happen. Obama would win Kerry’s 19 states and New Mexico Iowa Colorado and Nevada all states Mr.Obama won in 2008
Nevada went to Obama by 55% in 2008 but things are changing this time around
Nevada is among the highest states of unemployment and foreclosures
Also Nevada has a very significant Mormon population and a Republican governor of Hispanic descent who was elected in 2010.
And according to the 2012 Deseret Church Almanac , 6.7% of the population are members of the LDS church.
Without those 5 electoral votes from Nevada, Obama does NOT win. Clearly Nevada is an important state. This plan is certainly possible but assumes wins In Michigan and New Hampshire, which are certainly toss up states. It also assumes wins in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania ,both of whom just elected Republican Senators and governors
After evaluating all 5 “paths” this seems the 3rd most likely and makes Nevada a very important battleground state . A Romney win in Nevada would force Obama to concentrate on winning another Midwest state or Southern state he barely won last time by a lower margin than he won Nevada
I can also assure you that having talked to many Nevada residents there is a groundswell of Support for Romney who won the Nevada caucus in 2008 with more than 50% of the vote and beat Republican nominee McCain by almost 40%.
Obama won by less than 120,000 in 2008. However Mr Obama publicly slammed visiting Vegas and Sandoval won the governor election by 85K votes in 2010.
Expect Hispanics who supported Sandoval and the significant Mormon population that made up 25% of the GOP caucus members who gave Mr Romney a 51% win in 2008′s Gop Caucus ,to be very energized for this election compared to 4 years ago. Now add in the high state of unemployment and foreclosure. A rational person will see that West Path is VERY UNLIKELY to be a winner for President Obama. Keep checking back for Path 2 which will be soon be available. Mitt is IT in 2012
Obama state of the Union Fair share,4 Questions for Mr Obama
A few questions for the President in the state of the taxpayers rebuttal
1)If Obama wanted the tax rates raised why didn’t he do it when he had a veto proof majority in the house and Senate his first 2 years? Silence.
2)His last budget he submitted last year was voted down 97-0. Republican Congress fault? Right wing conspiracy? Tea Party? Not exactly.
3) His jobs bill in September didn’t have the votes to get through the Senate.Again what party controls the Senate? The Democrats.
So all the things above that Obama is blaming on Republicans are really HIS FAULT. he couldn’t unite HIS own party,let alon reach across the aisle and Unite all of Congress.
Reagan in this point of his term created 8 million new jobs and even though there are about 100 million MORE people here than 30 years Obama created 700,000 jobs. His stimulus was credited with creating 1.5 million jobs but he spent 787 Billion dollars to do it or 500K per job.
Obama is right the tax code is NOT fair. The top 1% of the people make 17% of all income but pay 37% of all taxes . The bottom 50% of the tax payers pay 2% of all income taxes. Look we have a progressive tax rate and those who make in the top 25% ( 66K or more) pay 87% of all the federal income taxes. We KNOW its not fair but we don’t mind SUBSIDIZING those who DON’T pay their FAIR share who make under 66K. We are GLAD to COVER them and don’t wish for them to pay more.
4) I don’t want to Blame anyone.But if we did blame those who didn’t pay their fair share wouldn’t we be blaming those UNDER 66K in the lower 75% who are only paying 13% of all tax???????? Food for thought.