2012 Race for the White House II: The Two Towers

Long ways out yet. This analysis nails a May election. In November ... well maybe, maybe not.

 

Whites as a whole vote about 80% for the GOP in Texas. It matters not if we have a lot of women.

 

You know, taking Texas for 84% white, and assuming that 80% of non whites vote Democratic: if 45% of female white previously-GOP voters flip, you flip the result with a little room to spare. That 80% isn't as overwhelming as you might think...

 

The NYTimes exit poll from Texas is reported as thus:

So men (47% of the electorate) broke for McCain by 20 points, while women (53% of the electorate) broken for McCain by 5. Nationally, Obama won men by 1 and women by 13. So Texas is 21 points more conservative than the average for men and 18 more conservative for women. According to recent polls, Obama trails Romney by anywhere between 0-8 points among men but leads Romney by 15-20 among women. So let's average that out; Obama loses men nationally by 4 and wins women by 17. So, if Texas is 21 points more conservative for men and 18 more conservative for women, we expect Obama to lose Texas by:

Men = 25(.47) = 11.75
Women = 1(.53) = 0.53
Total = 12.28

That's 12.28 points more conservative than the national 2012 result. Well, if Obama loses men nationally by 4 and wins women by 17, he will get a roughly 8-9 point lead. That means that Texas will be 12 points more conservative than that 8-9 point lead, meaning Obama would lose Texas by 4.

Now that ought to keep Romney campaigners scared until November. If Obama decides to open offices in Texas and Georgia, this election is OVER.

 

Do you have a link, AB, because that quote of yours is basically unreadable.

 

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/states/exitpolls/texas.html

God dammit BigSoccer why can't you just copy-paste like a normal website.

 

In looking at the percentages on the link you provided, it doesn't look like it would take much to flip Texas, IMHO. Women made up 53% of the voters in 2008 with 52% voting for McCain and 47% for Obama. If that flips in 2012, that puts Obama down by 7% instead of 12%. If the "War on Women" really resonates and Obama gets 56% of the female vote, then you're looking at less than 3% difference and Obama would just need to focus on increasing the number of Hispanics that voted for him in 2008 and he could flip Texas.

Now that would be funny.

 

All Obama has to do is make Texas competitive, not win. Think about it. With Florida, Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina, Texas is really the only big EV state the Republicans can rely upon any more. If it goes from "Solid GOP" to "Lean GOP/Tossup" then you can kiss good-bye any real chance the GOP has to win the election. The GOP would have to spend so much money to defend the state it would blow your mind.

 

That's a helluva a lot of assumptions to come up with a 4 point loss, especially when it comes to gauging a state as large and diverse as Texas. And basing it on 2008 assumptions when the Republicans nominated a "RINO". Romney might be seen as such, but the anti-Obama vote will be out in full force, unlike 2008 when a lot of people had a cautious but unheated view of Obama. Don't forget this is a state that chose Rick Perry by 17 points over a guy that was probably the best candidate the Dems could find.

I short, the Columbus Crew is 'my favorite team' for a month if Obama loses Texas by less than 5 points (or wins).

 

Romney wins Texas by 10.

 

The only two assumptions I make are that the nature of 2012 will be similar to 2008 and women will vote for Democrats more readily this time than last time. That said, Texas did elect Rick Perry. If Obama loses Texas by 10 or more, then FC Dallas is my 'favorite team' for a month.

And if Obama loses Texas between 5-10, we both have to suck it up and be Seattle fans for a month.

 

Just wait until Romney turns his money machine from Santorum to Obama. Although the president's record is his own worst enemy. Not even George Soros or Bill Maher will be able to save him from it.

 

You mean wait until he turns his money machine against a candidate who can match him dollar for dollar, after spending outrageously more to eek out wins against other weak Republicans? Wait for that? Ok.

 

If he's such a "weak" Republican, why is he only trailing Obama by an average of 4.7 percentage points with unemployment stagnating?

 

With unemployment the way it is, he should be leading with double that percentage.

 

How so? Don't tell me jobs, if you look at the graph job growth bottomed the day that Obama took over and has improved steadily ever since. If you care about job growth AT ALL, you'd never vote for Romney given that job growth died under Bush and recovered under Obama.

Nor is the deficit a credible answer -- whatever crimes Obama committed to the budget, W did twice over.

So you gotta bring something else.

 

And now that the highly negative primary is over, it wouldn't shock me if he was doing so by Memorial Day.

 

Soaring deficits and his widely despised healthcare plan. People don't like either, and those are both part of his record, whether you personally agree or not.

 

Nope. People will not see Stephen Harper as a viable alternative to Obama. Won't happen.

 

All you have to do now is get Mitt Romney to explain why his healthcare plan is different, and we have a tight election on our hands!

 

You are aware that Obamacare is based on Romneycare, right? Romney doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to healthcare.

However, let's be serious here, Romney is the Republican nominee because the other candidates couldn't match his bankroll. Obama isn't going to have that problem. Obama is going to have a field day with Romney's etch-a-sketch political beliefs and he's actually going to have the money to do the opposition research that Romney's Republican opponents didn't do and more than enough money to carpet bomb all of the swing states with ads pointing out all of Romney's deficiencies.

 

He's done so at almost every campaign event.