Skip to main content

Obama still has reason to smile in North Carolina

In 2008, North Carolina proved to be a pleasant surprise for the Democrats and Barack Obama. A state that had gone Republican at the Presidential level since shortly after the Earth cooled, Obama parlayed goodwill accumulated by extensive primary campaigning into a one-point general election win.

This time around, depending on the nominee, the President looks to be in no worse than comparable shape, according to new numbers out today from PPP:

Public Policy Polling (PDF) (6/8-6/11. North Carolina Voters. May results in parentheses)

Barack Obama (D) 45 (46)
Mitt Romney (R) 44 (43)

Barack Obama (D) 47 (--)
Tim Pawlenty (R) 40 (--)

Barack Obama (D) 50 (50)
Newt Gingrich (R) 40 (42)

Barack Obama (D) 48 (--)
Herman Cain (R) 37 (--)

Barack Obama (D) 52 (52)
Sarah Palin (R) 38 (40)

President Obama's approval ratings there are still in net positive territory, though a tiny bit softer than last month (+2; 49-47, as opposed to 50-46 last month). One has to assume that if he can keep his job approval here in positive territory, he'll be at least a slight betting favorite here.

The 2012 presidential map is shaping up to be pretty damned interesting. The President's numbers in the South look pretty darned good, on balance. In addition to polling leads of recent vintage in North Carolina and Virginia, polls released in the past week have the President competitive in Georgia and South Carolina. However, other places that were more reliably Democratic in 2008 have shown a more variable outcome for the President (Pennsylvania comes to mind).

We are, of course, about three miles into the marathon, if that. There will be miles to go before we start counting to 270. But the President has to be pleased that, even as his national approval numbers are in the middling zone, he still has leads in critical states like this one.

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

  •  Really good news. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY, Allogenes, TofG

    Even with the bad economy, Obama is going to benefit from an underwhelming GOP field and, likely, a GOP electorate that won't send the best candidate (Romney) against him.

    27, white male, TX-24 (current), TN-07 (originally), liberal-leaning independent

    by TDDVandy on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 08:41:03 PM PDT

    •  What's your reasoning behind that? (0+ / 0-)

      Do you think the GOP will rally around the strongest anti-Romney candidate? What if there is no clear anti-Romney? With such a divided field, it may not take a huge percentage of Republican primary voters to win the nomination.

      "Sometimes a scream is better than a thesis." -Ralph Waldo Emerson "YEAAAAAAARGH!" -Howard Dean

      by AtomikNY on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 09:08:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Romneycare (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TDDVandy, Allogenes, TofG

        Romney can't run against his record. His answer in the debate in NH tonight was basically that his health plan was different because it was state, not federal, and the rest of his argument didn't amount to anything. I can't see him winning the Republican primaries, although the conventional wisdom is that he is now the frontrunner.

        Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

        by MichaelNY on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 10:51:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  This, basically. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, TofG

          Eventually the Republican field will narrow and the anti-Romney crowd will rally behind one candidate.  Romney figures to win New Hampshire; I figure that whoever wins Iowa will become the default anti-Romney candidate and the hardcore wingers will rally behind that person.

          27, white male, TX-24 (current), TN-07 (originally), liberal-leaning independent

          by TDDVandy on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 11:15:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I think it's theoretically possible... (7+ / 0-)

    That President Obama could easily hold Virginia and Colorado, hang onto North Carolina, and possibly expand further in the Mountain West and Atlantic South while shedding a couple of Midwestern or quasi-Midwestern states like Indiana and Pennsylvania (maybe Ohio, but the big problem for the GOP is that Gov. Kasich is about as popular as the Ebola virus) and being threatened in New Hampshire and maybe even New Jersey.

    Interestingly enough, Obama can lose North Carolina, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Colorado, and even New Jersey from his 2008 states and he still wins the election (270-268). More realistically in a scenario like this, he might end up losing Indiana and Pennsylvania and picking up Georgia, Arizona, and Montana, though I suspect Romney would be favored to retain Arizona and Montana and would threaten Obama in Nevada, Ohio, Colorado, and North Carolina. If he wins all five of those states, BTW, Obama still wins (282-256), but if he somehow flips New Jersey, he is elected narrowly (268-270).

    Right now, Obama's math is holding up where it needs to. If he really starts looking bad in states he should be holding, like New Jersey, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, or New Mexico, or if he starts sagging in a lot more swing states (at last poll, he was leading in Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Minnesota, and Wisconsin as well as in North Carolina), then there's greater cause for concern. He's in a good place right now as long he stays vigilant, and if the economy starts adding more jobs more regularly, it's hard to see him losing reelection.

    Independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native, Swingnut for life, and keeper of the DKE glossary.

    by SaoMagnifico on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 08:53:55 PM PDT

    •  pffft. even New Jersey (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY, Allogenes, askew

      I live in New Jersey and it is not a swing state. Sure, the governor of NJ changes parties every 8 years like clockwork. And NJ's congressional delegation has more Republicans than it should (6 out of 13). But NJ has been reliably Democratic at the presidential level since 1992.
      You're thinking that since Mitt Romney was able to get elected governor in a very Democratic northeastern state, he should be able to get elected presidential in a slightly-less-Democratic northeastern state. No he won't. Once he stands behind the national Republican platform he won't do better than from any other Republican presidential candidate.

      •  No, I don't think that (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY, TofG

        New Jersey is likely Democratic, I think. But President Obama hasn't been polling quite as strongly there as he has in a couple of traditional swing states.

        Independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native, Swingnut for life, and keeper of the DKE glossary.

        by SaoMagnifico on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 09:57:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  When was the last time we (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, dufffbeer, Allogenes, askew, TofG

          got a poll out of New Jersey? And I believe that the last PPP poll out of Pennsylvania was an outlier. Romney getting 20 percent of blacks? Yeah, okay. Other polls haven't been great, but I don't think he's losing the state, or even coming as close as Kerry did to doing so. I suspect that if we polled it again soon, we'd see better results.

          •  You're right... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY, dufffbeer, Allogenes

            I'm confusing the recent Fairleigh Dickinson poll, which was national, with being a New Jersey poll. I think the user who originally posted it made that mistake and I forgot that it was corrected.

            Independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native, Swingnut for life, and keeper of the DKE glossary.

            by SaoMagnifico on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 10:38:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I'd be careful (0+ / 0-)

            critiquing toplines the off the crosstabs. Yes, Romney won't get 20% of blacks, but that's only 2% of the overall vote. You don't know that Obama isn't over-performing in that poll by 2 or 3 percent with whites. The small sub-samples don't have a large enough sample size to be statistically significant. It's like if you discounted a national poll because the two people it got from Waukesha county were democrats.

            And of course, the other thing that 20% of black voters being 2% of the vote means is that even if Romney is at 0% with black voters and the rest of the poll is accurate, he's only doing two points worse.

            •  erm... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY

              the toplines based on the crosstabs.

            •  2% of the vote ??? (0+ / 0-)

              just for the record, blacks were 13% of the PA electorate in 2008 according to exit polls ... and Obama received 95% of their vote ...

            •  Odd Results in Pennsylvania (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY, TofG

              That wasn't the only odd result from that poll. It had, for instance, Obama only getting 70 percent of Democrats against Romney, with him getting 17 percent and 12 percent undecided. Why do we expect that to happen? Why is this supposed mass of conservative Democrats abandoning Obama now, as opposed to three years ago? Why are they giving him up for Romney, of all people, who hasn't spent any time in the state and hasn't begun to be raked over the coals by Obama's campaign? And why is Obama so much more offensive to them than John Kerry, the Massachusetts liberal?

              Don't get me wrong: if things get a lot worse for Obama, these numbers wouldn't surprise me. But I figure that Obama will at least do no worse than John Kerry, who scored 85 percent of Democrats. If he gets that percentage, plus five percent of Republicans and 45 percent of Independents, he'll do a lot better. With PPP's breakdown, which is 51/38/11, that would give him 50.15 percent. That's a win, but a narrow one. Of course, I don't think it's a given that Obama loses Independents so badly, or at all.

              •  Kerry had no presidential record to run on (0+ / 0-)

                Obama does and those "Reagan Democrats" might well perceive it as liberal. Contrast that to the '08 campaign where, arguably, Obama ran as a centrist.

                For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast

                by andyroo312 on Tue Jun 14, 2011 at 10:48:01 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  But here's the thing: we keep hearing (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  TofG, askew, MichaelNY

                  about these huge masses of people that aren't going to vote for Obama because of his race and culture or because he's too damn liberal. It's possible there are more of them out there, but I happen to think the result is already baked into the cake, which is why Obama won about 90 percent of Democrats in Pennsylvania last time instead of 95 percent. Before I get to be worried, I'll need to see a lot (more?) proof that there's a big problem.

          •  Including, in Pa., an increasing Hispanic vote, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY

            which the GOP seems intent on locking in as Democratic.

    •  Obama won't lose Pennsylvania, NJ, or Ohio. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TDDVandy, MichaelNY, blueoasis

      He'll carry all the reliably blue states (those carried by Gore and Kerry both), and that includes PA and NJ.  He'll carry Ohio (and, of course, Michigan and Wisconsin) thanks to the GOP Overreach Follies that will have been playing in all of those states for almost two years by November 2012.  If that horror show doesn't scare labor and other working voters back into the Democratic fold, the nation has gone nuts--and it hasn't.  Only the Republicans and the media have.

      "Americans are a wonderful people: They will always do the right thing--after exhausting every other possible alternative."--Winston Churchill

      by keikekaze on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 10:22:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If it weren't for that one PPP poll of PA (6+ / 0-)

        the whole meme about Pennsylvania being a problem would not exist.

        PPP's PA sample was wildly different than it's other samples, which in broad strokes represnt an electorate like 2008, while the PA poll had an electorate more similar to 2010.

        Next time they poll it (hopefully soon) I suspect their sample will be more like all their other samples (including from red states), and will show Obama in much better shape.  It won't because of a change in mood in the state, but rather the absent 12% of Obama voters will reappear in the sample.

        http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/13/21516/201/804/660248

        by tommypaine on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 11:44:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  That's how it seems now (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        keikekaze, TofG

        But as I keep reminding people here, it depends a great deal on what happens to the economy (specifically, unemployment and foreclosures) between now and November, 2012.

        Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

        by MichaelNY on Tue Jun 14, 2011 at 12:06:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The right question: are NC/VA/CO/NV more likely D (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY, askew, keikekaze

        than PA/OH?

        Based on demographic trends, they should be more likely D by '16, unless our push on the Ryan plan retains traction. (Also based on demographics, PA/OH may be less D in '12 and '16.)

        to rephrase, would McCain's push in PA/OH have had more success in '12 or '16?

        "I hope; therefore, I can live."
        For SSP users, see my Tips for Swingnuts diary

        by tietack on Tue Jun 14, 2011 at 06:29:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  As I've said before, I don't see this meme of Pa. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          trending Republican. In the growing areas of the state (esp. southeast) the trend is Democratic. And yes, that includes Chester and Delaware Counties (Montgomery County is definitely Democratic presidential races now).

      •  I would agree about New Jersey (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY, keikekaze

        That is, unless Giuliani's somehow the nominee. As I've before stated w/ Pennsylvania, however, I think PPP's probably accurate and Obama is in real trouble there. In '08, he underperformed in the light blue, rural SW and overperformed in the pink, populous Philly suburbs. To prevail without the "Reagan Democrats" in the Pittsburgh suburbs, he'll need those center-right, Independent suburbanites, who found Palin unbearable, to stick with him. If he bleeds counties in the SE, he's, at best, looking at Gore/Kerry numbers. If he comes to the point where the margin out of Philly is most critical, he's probably losing the state.

        For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast

        by andyroo312 on Tue Jun 14, 2011 at 07:41:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Who is going to appeal to these people? (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, askew, TofG, keikekaze

          You've made this argument before, and I never responded to it last time in the detail I wanted to, but the counties in the Southwest that you are talking about aren't that big. His under-performance as a whole isn't that big. And while he did do a lot better in the suburbs than Kerry did, it wasn't entirely at the expense of McCain. With that in mind, it's entirely possible that the Republican improves on McCain's numbers without drastically cutting down on Obama's numbers. (I'll try to do this in more detail later in the week.)

          I also think it's important to ask who the preferred candidate of these people will be. Why is Romney going to do so well?

          •  The suburbanites are fiscons, but not socons (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TofG, keikekaze, MichaelNY

            Hence, Palin was a disaster with them and Obama way overperformed in the Philly suburbs. I suspect Romney is an ideal GOP candidate with these folks - a business-focused, fiscally conservative social moderate, someone perhaps akin to Tom Corbett. I concede that most Republicans will lose Pennsylvania fairly handily, but Romney, no doubt, will prove competitive.

            For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast

            by andyroo312 on Tue Jun 14, 2011 at 10:37:00 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's if he appears as a social moderate. (5+ / 0-)

              He might have to run to the right on social issues himself, or appoint a nut job as his running mate, to turn out the base for this issue.

              I also think we are playing guesswork with how the electorate will perceive everything. Will Romney's almost certain call for massive tax cuts that go towards the rich play well in a time of huge deficits? What about his distinct lack of job creation plans? How will he appear once the Democrats hammer him on his flip flops on any number of issues?

            •  Suburbs Might Not Be The Right Word (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY

              Minor point - I'm not really taking issue with the broader points people are making on either side here. But when we talk about "southwest PA", the Pittsburgh suburbs end pretty quickly and give way to counties which are not particularly suburban or even exurban. They're decidedly not fiscal conservatives. And they're more socially conservative than the Democrats you'd find in places like the Philly burbs.

              Suburbia is largely confined to Allegheny County with a few pieces in Washington and Westmoreland. Beyond that, southwest PA is really those population-bleeding counties like Greene, Fayette, Mercer, Lawrence, etc. These are the counties where Carter, Mondale and Dukakis cleaned up but where Perot was strong in the 1990s. Gore held on narrowly, Kerry lost a bunch of these counties, and Obama lost every one of them except for a narrow in Cambria.

        •  I'm not from PA myself, . . . (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TofG, askew, BK in the HV, MichaelNY

          . . . and will bow to others' superior knowledge of the micro-picture.  But the macro-picture is:  Every four years, the national media go into a frenzy about how the Democrats are going to lose Pennsylvania next time.  And it never happens.  If Obama is well set up in the Philly suburbs and needs to appeal to "Reagan Democrats" in the Pittsburgh area, he should be doing fine.

          "Americans are a wonderful people: They will always do the right thing--after exhausting every other possible alternative."--Winston Churchill

          by keikekaze on Tue Jun 14, 2011 at 01:27:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Exactly (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            keikekaze, MichaelNY

            Also, the charlatans in the press want you to believe that white working-class Democrats were a pro-Reagan monolith, therefore southwest PA coal-and-steel country must have voted for Reagan. Except it didn't. Mondale took more than 60% of the vote in Fayette and Beaver counties. He approached 60% in Washington and Greene. He cruised to wins in Cambria and Lawrence, with narrower wins in Armstrong, Mercer and Westmoreland. And of course he won Allegheny, where Pittsburgh is located. Likewise, he was dominant across the border in the Mahoning Valley, Ohio's steel corridor.

            There were plenty of Reagan Democrats, and yes, plenty of them were white, working-class people. But steel country was not Reagan friendly. It took decades for those people to switch and even now, they've sent Mark Critz to Congress twice.

  •  In the end (6+ / 0-)

    all Obama needs to hold is the Kerry states, plus Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado.  We're worrying about Pennsylvania and New Hampshire but I really, really don't see either of those states flipping at this point, even with Romney as the nominee.

    The fact that we're polling so good in North Carolina just reassures me of how screwed Republicans are.  They cannot afford to lose North Carolina, because at that point they've already lost Virginia and probably Ohio as well.

    •  I think Romney flips Nevada... (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike, MichaelNY, ArkDem14, itskevin, TofG

      And maybe Colorado before he flips Virginia. I'd almost call Virginia "likely Democratic" at this point. Last poll had President Obama leading Romney by 9-10 points and crushing everyone else by margins from the teens to the low twenties.

      Independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native, Swingnut for life, and keeper of the DKE glossary.

      by SaoMagnifico on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 11:23:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  NH (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TofG

      Why do you think Romney wouldn't win there, if he were the nominee?

      Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

      by MichaelNY on Tue Jun 14, 2011 at 12:08:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There's been a couple polls (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY, TofG

        showing it close, but I still think a 10 point margin from 2008 will be tough for Romney to turn around just because of his goodwill in the state.  McCain was pretty well liked in New Hampshire as well.  And there's the fact that New Hampshire was the one state in the country that Gore lost yet Kerry won.  2010 aside, I just don't see New Hampshire really flipping back so easily, at least not before a bunch of other states fall.

        •  The fact that Gore lost and Kerry won (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          means nothing. The state has a huge number of swing voters. Swing voters who last year voted the GOP supermajorities in both chambers of the state legislature.

          •  Indeed, NH Indies tend to veer all over the map (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY

            They voted solidly for Obama...and then even more solidly for Ayotte. They're always miserable and spiteful and, though they admired McCain, they wanted to stick it to Bush in '08. This time around, their venom will be aimed toward our new incumbent and, I suspect, any competent, center-right Republican will be wholly capable of beating Obama. Sure, Obama will garner 90 percent of Democrats. But that's just not enough if you're garnering less than 45 percent of Indies in a state where they compose of nearly half of the electorate. I happen to think Romney could prevail by 10 points himself.

            For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast

            by andyroo312 on Tue Jun 14, 2011 at 07:46:25 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  This is why we need a new New Hampshire poll. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY, TofG

              The last one we had was in, what, April? It's almost two months old.

              Anyway, while I think what you describe is possible, it's far from guaranteed. Again, I have to ask, what's so special about Romney? Where's the evidence he's popular enough to not only beat Obama, but beat him handily, amongst Independents? There are no indications he's built up anywhere close to the reserve of goodwill McCain had in the state or that Obama has pissed them off nearly as much as Bush had, at least not from the information I've seen. He's also probably benefiting from not being attacked in any significant way.

              •  Romney is Mr. Inoffensive (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY

                He's also Mr. Uninspring and Mr. CureforInsomnia, too, but, if this election is a pure referendum on Barack Obama, he's precisely the sort of competent Republican who can muster the necessary margin among Independents. Obama, no doubt, will garner at least 90 percent of Democrats. Romney, no doubt, will garner at least 93 percent of Republicans. Hence, Romney probably needs at a 5 point margin with Indies.

                For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast

                by andyroo312 on Tue Jun 14, 2011 at 10:40:44 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  All the NJ and Swing Talk (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TofG

    Obama wins New Jersey. The state wouldn't go for Romney, period. Polls have Obama winning Mass by 10+ points over Romney, their former governor, so I think we can be pretty safe in saying Obama gets the rest of New England.

    Penn and Ohio will be closer than in 2008, I'm sure, but with the recent uproar against anti-union Republicans, I think it'll be safe to say that the President will retain these votes. Obviously, he'll lose Indiana.

    Iowa is going solidly D so I doubt much swing here. Nevada will likely go Romney. Utah is going to go all out to get a Mormon into the White House (don't believe me? Prop 8. All that needs to be said). Colorado, though, won't be as easily swayed, and I'm pretty sure the abortion issue will come up again and keep my state in the blue. We'll probably lose Florida though, a sad fact, but the state is simply leaning too heavily to the R.

    As for the two states which have moved to swing status in the last election, Virginia and North Carolina, I believe that Obama's ethnic advantage, crossed with the state's energized Democratic voters, will simply be too much for Romney to overcome.

    Obama only needs to win one swing state, and he continues to poll well enough in both of these states. He can win without them (in all reality, President Obama simply needs to win the northeast, New England, the Rust Belt minus Indiana, the Pacific minus Alaska, the "northwest territory," and New Mexico. All of this is so long as we can maintain our holds in Iowa (easy), Ohio (less easy), and Pennsylvania (suspiciously uneasy) and I'm telling you, he will win Colorado and most likely Virginia. North Carolina will just be the icing on the cake.

    Oh, and he's winning the popular vote hands down. If he doesn't and a Republican pulls it off (at least from the current lineup of possible potentials), I'm moving to Australia. The only question, Perth, Melbourne, or Canberra?

    •  A couple of quibbles (4+ / 0-)

      First, you said:

      Obama wins New Jersey. The state wouldn't go for Romney, period. Polls have Obama winning Mass by 10+ points over Romney, their former governor, so I think we can be pretty safe in saying Obama gets the rest of New England.

      What 'chu talkin' 'bout? What 'chu mean, "the rest of New England"? You think Joisey's paht 'a New England? Whatsamattah you, huh? Hey Lou, this guy says Joisey's paht 'a New England! Fuggedaboutit!

      Second, you said:

      If he doesn't and a Republican pulls it off (at least from the current lineup of possible potentials), I'm moving to Australia. The only question, Perth, Melbourne, or Canberra?

      Unfortunately, these days Australia's electorate is about as right-wing as the U.S. electorate, with the Liberal Party running further to the evangelical far right. Also, everything in Australia can and will kill you and dreams of the day it can poison, strangle, crush, drown, and/or disembowel you. I recommend New Zealand instead.

      Independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native, Swingnut for life, and keeper of the DKE glossary.

      by SaoMagnifico on Tue Jun 14, 2011 at 03:38:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What if unemployment stays at 9% through Nov '12? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY, cordobes

      Then such states come into play, even with a relatively crazy R nominee.

      "I hope; therefore, I can live."
      For SSP users, see my Tips for Swingnuts diary

      by tietack on Tue Jun 14, 2011 at 06:33:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  ugh (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      New Jersey is most decidedly not a part of New England. And just because Romney loses Mass doesn't mean he loses NH, it's still a swing state.

      21, male, Kyoto-01 (residence) RI-01 (voting) IL-01 (college), hopeless Swingnut

      by sapelcovits on Thu Jun 16, 2011 at 05:11:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Romney and the Palin numbers tell me the most. (0+ / 0-)

    Romney's 44 and Pawlenty's 40 and Cain's 38 are about the same to me.  Since Pawlenty and especially Cain have such "unsure" favorabilities which tells me they are unknown.  I would not take the weakness of the unknowns and Romney's strenth to say the state is a tossup aganst a "rational" candidate.  And while Herman has been showing signs of being less than rational for now no one except political junkies knows who he is.

    Palin on the other hand is known and the results are ugly.  Same with Gingrich.  What would be interesting to know is the demographics of the defectors.  If they are moderates and independents that may be tough for say a Palin (since I don't take Gingrich ever getting nominated seriously) to woo back.  But if they are soft conservatives or Republicans a strongly divisive campaign can bring those voters home despite their initial qualms about Palin personally.

    •  Play the guessing game. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TofG

      You can see the specific breakdowns yourself, and from those, you can make your own and compare them to previous results.

      We could quibble about the margins, but you don't even need to crunch the numbers to get a general idea of what might happen based on particular results. I don't think, short of some weird quirk of the group (where Independents are more conservative than usual because center-left Indies identify as Democrats), Indies in North Carolina are giving someone line Palin or Cain any more than 50 percent of their vote. I also think it's guaranteed that Obama peels off more Republicans than he loses Democrats, and that he breaks 90 percent of Democrats. If that's true, there's just no way Palin can win, unless there's an absolute surge in Republican turnout like there has never, ever been.

      •  Let me explain what I mean. (0+ / 0-)

        Soft Republican and Democratic voters can and often do shift.  But in a tough contest usually always come home.

        As a hyphothetical example let us pretend John Edwards was the nominee in 2008.  The scandal broke and probably a lot of us right here due to his utterly sliminess would flee and start looking at McCain.  But unlike the Independents who'd go to McCain we'd probably end up returning home once the ideological stakes are clearly drawn.

        With the Republican field and especially with Palin in particular there is a lot of discontent among Republicans.  And I would not be shocked if with her in particular given her foibles you have Republicans who are embarassed by her and would say they'd hold their nose and vote for the opposition.  For someone like Palin there could be quite a few of them.

        But those voters would be very prone to flipping.  Far more easily than independents who won't be influenced by the "old time religion" to get back on board.  The tightening you see in many contests right before an election is often the soft partisans coming back home once the ideological lines are clearly drawn and election day approaches.

        Thus I'd be interested to see what the mix of defectors between her and Romney is.

  •  If Romney wins the nomination (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KingofSpades, MichaelNY

    President Obama will be slightly favored in North Carolina.  The Republicans in NC somewhat refer Romney as not being a true Republican (whatever the hell that means).  Specifically, they have issues with him over Romneycare, pro-life/pro-choice flip flop, and his faith.  

  •  Also, NC GOP continues to sink. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo! So little time, so much to know!

    by KingofSpades on Tue Jun 14, 2011 at 09:12:28 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site