There is (sigh) more twists and turns of the story of Cain and his accusers in the Morning Jolt, as well as a look at the grim outlook for John Kasich’s reforms in Ohio, and the 2012 electoral map:
The Electoral Map, One Year Out
The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza looks at the 2012 electoral map and surmises, “There’s no question that President Obama faces one of the most challenging political environments in modern memory as he prepares to try to win a second term next November. But with one year to go before the 2012 election, a state-by-state examination of the battleground map suggests that the president still retains several plausible pathways to the 270 electoral votes he needs… Obama won three states — Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia — that no Democrat had carried at the presidential level in at least two decades, and he scored victories in six other states (Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico and Ohio) that George W. Bush had won in 2004. Those nine states will account for 112 electoral votes in 2012 and stand at the center of the fight for the presidency. If Obama loses every one of them but holds on to the others he won, he will drop to 247 electoral votes and Republicans will win the White House. (The decennial reapportionment of congressional districts after the 2010 Census subtracts six electoral votes from states Obama won in 2008.) But with the exception of Indiana and its 11 electoral votes, Obama is very much in the game in those states. In several, even Republicans acknowledge that he is favored.”
He puts New Mexico and Iowa in the likely Obama pile at this point.
“Republicans shouldn’t get cocky,” concludes Betsy Newmark.
Hugh Hewitt: “It isn’t very good for an incumbent a year out, and if the GOP nominates a ticket that is competitive in the PA-OH-MI-WI-IA-MN region, then the map turns decidedly against the president. The betting is that Marco Rubio will be the GOP nominee’s obvious pick for Veep, but either Paul Ryan or Tim Pawleny add votes in this region.”
My prediction for the acronym of 2012: PAOHMIWIAMN.
This will be the last Morning Jolt for a little bit – the remainder of the week I’ll be on a personal trip and next week I’ll be on the National Review cruise. Apparently everyone on the cruise is used to getting their Morning Jolt, so I’ll be expected to write all of these out by hand and slide them under cabin doors by 8 a.m. on the ship. The Jolt will be back on November 21… just in time for Thanksgiving week, traditionally one of the slower news weeks of the year.
What?!? No "Jolt" for 8 days? Out for the rest of the week? Cruising?
I need to get into political commentary... Look how much vacation time is available.
Rush and Obama only work about 6 weeks a year...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePAOHMIWIAMN Should really be:
PAOHMIWIIAMN
Penn = PA
Ohio = OH
Michigan = MI
Wisconsin = WI
Iowa = IA (Not A)
Minnesota = MN
I think it properly written is much more poetic.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.
National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don’t matter to their candidate.
With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere would be counted equally for, and directly assist, the candidate for whom it was cast.
Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in the current handful of swing states. The political reality would be that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the country.
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.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM- 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions that possess 132 electoral votes- 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse