Karl Rove’s first 2012 electoral map: Including “leaners,” Obama 284, Romney 172, toss-up 82

posted at 4:41 pm on April 26, 2012 by Allahpundit

Via Dave Weigel. For a compulsive eeyore like me, if the daily polls showing O ahead are like a shot of whiskey, this is like a shot of heroin. Eyes rolling back in my head.

Dude, I’m nervous.

On the one hand, how seriously should we take a projection that has South Carolina as a toss-up? Maybe this is Rove knowing that his map will get attention and using it to scare conservatives into donating and GOTV volunteering. On the other hand, none of his other state projections look obviously wrong to me. Even if you take New Hampshire and Nevada out of Obama’s “lean” column, he still gets to 271 and a second term.

HuffPo’s Mark Blumenthal is out today with his first electoral map of the campaign too:

The big difference with Rove’s map? Blumenthal gives Florida and its 29 electoral votes to Obama. I’m skeptical that O will take that state again this time, partly because of how well Romney did there in the primary and partly because Rubio will be stumping for him there either as senator or VP nominee. Put that back into the toss-up column and Obama’s at 269, but even then, all he’d need is one win among Nevada, Colorado, or Iowa to give him another four years.

In lieu of giving you my own projection, go look at this one from Ben Domenech, as it seems quite plausible to me. Romney wins Florida, Nevada, and New Hampshire while O takes Iowa, Colorado, and the coveted trifecta of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. The only state on which I differ, I think, is that last one. Problem is, even turning Virginia red on Domenech’s map isn’t enough to deliver the election to Romney. He needs to win either Ohio or Pennsylvania on top of it, which is why (a) The One is already busy pandering to blue-collar voters with gimmicks like the Buffett Rule and (b) Rob Portman is likely to be Romney’s VP. The rust belt will probably decide things. Again.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7

Because that’s what the Bushies like Rove will do when Romney blows a very winnable election.

You don’t expect the Establishment to actually blame themselves, do you?

I mean, people like Moesart still bash Palin regularly around these parts; there are plenty of stooges around here who will peddle the Establishment line. And they’ve been doing it since 2009.

victor82 on April 27, 2012 at 7:47 AM

The republican party now belongs to the Roves, Aileses, McCains, Trumps, Bushes, Romneys, etc. They’ll pick over the bones no matter how it all turns out. Poor Rubio and Christie, etc. will have plenty of damage control to do after the fact. And most can see what’s coming whether they choose to accept the reality or not. But the Ann Coulters and Matt Drudges will still be able to capitalize on the disasters either way and make headlines and sell books so they’re not worried. And that also leaves the parasite Bushes and Romneys to see whose sons/daughters will continue their legacies in future politics. That’s what it’s all about and it’s a vicious cycle that we can’t break from. But we can party like it’s 1999 and that sure makes me excited (sarc/).

mozalf on April 27, 2012 at 9:03 AM

Maybe I’m an eternal optimist, but I do not believe that the voters in this Country are this stupid. Even most of the Democrats (those who are not ideologues) that I know, cannot stand Obama. They are embarrassed by him, and think he’s an idiot. BTW, I live in a very Hispanic, Democrat County, so I know alot of Democrats.

Susanboo on April 27, 2012 at 9:08 AM

A. I can’t stand Rove… haven’t ever liked him.

B. What happened to all this “Romney can win in the NE battleground states!” that guys like Rove promised? His model has Romney taking ZERO states in the NE and probably losing FL as well.

C. How would this map (assuming leaners fall that way) differ from a Newt-Obama map? IA and NV would fall back to Obama? Big deal. So why was Rove so intent on Romney getting the nomination? Senate races?

mankai on April 27, 2012 at 9:20 AM

Only one question: what brand of tequila was Rove drinking when he made this map?

Save this one for November and compare it to the post-election map. Laugh heartily. Rinse. Repeat.

Marcus Traianus on April 27, 2012 at 9:21 AM

Being the underdog IS NOT a bad thing, at this point in the electoral game.

Unless someone is planning on eating you.

FlaMurph on April 27, 2012 at 9:36 AM

Terrorfying but not surprising. We share the nation with morons. Give it time, and pray.

arand on April 27, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Obama will not win Wisconsin this time. New Hampshire will also definitely be in play . . . and probably go to Romney. The Rust Belt states will also be very much in play as well, and I believe they will lean toward Romney — including both Michigan and Pennsylvania. Romney will definitely win Ohio. Even Illinois will be a bit of a battleground when the fall rolls around.

These maps are “worse case scenarios” right now because people have not focused on casting a vote. But with Romney halving the guy in head-to-head polls now, right after a bruising and nasty primary battle, Obama will be toast by election day.

Obama is just too damned vulnerable on too many issues right now to pull off a win. He’s no Harry Truman. He’s a Jimmy Carter, through and through.

The fundamental issue is the economy . . . for some, primarily jobs; for others, run-away spending and deficits; for some overburdening government and regulation.

But whatever the focus, Obama owns it, by what he did, and didn’t do. He is the one who brought us to this point. He didn’t lead us here — he brought us here.

And it’s a damned mess.

Trochilus on April 27, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Why vote for an Obama wanna-be when you can have the orginal?

stenwin77 on April 27, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Harbingeing on April 26, 2012 at 8:07 PM

Careful. You might join the “tinfoil hate” crowd. It started as a pair of twins, of which I, apparently, am one of the founding twins, but I see that it’s grown. LOL.

totherightofthem on April 27, 2012 at 10:07 AM

600+ posts. I wondered how high this one might go.

Bitter Clinger on April 27, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Doom. going for 700

lol

gerrym51 on April 27, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Clearly Rove hates Romney. Who couldn’t beat this straw-man Rove has created?

rpupton on April 27, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Being the underdog IS NOT a bad thing, at this point in the electoral game.

Unless someone is planning on eating you.

FlaMurph on April 27, 2012 at 9:36 AM

LOL …. thank you needed a good laugh ….

conservative tarheel on April 27, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Obama is just too damned vulnerable on too many issues right now to pull off a win. He’s no Harry Truman. He’s a Jimmy Carter, through and through.

The fundamental issue is the economy . . . for some, primarily jobs; for others, run-away spending and deficits; for some overburdening government and regulation.

But whatever the focus, Obama owns it, by what he did, and didn’t do. He is the one who brought us to this point. He didn’t lead us here — he brought us here.

And it’s a damned mess.

Trochilus on April 27, 2012 at 10:00 AM

well said … however I like “he isn’t Truman … here is Jimmy Carter on steroids
I think it is so much better …
as far as the economy goes .. all 3 points need to be hammered home…
repeatedly ….

conservative tarheel on April 27, 2012 at 10:23 AM

here = he is

conservative tarheel on April 27, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Thanks Carl.
I quit

Delsa on April 27, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Buy Danish on April 26, 2012 at 5:54 PM

The problem with the “Truecons” is that they judicial/executive activism for their position on social issues. Then in the next breath they pine for reducing government and giving more power to the states.
But Betcha by golly wow if you don’t agree with every social issue they talk about you are called a rino or squish.
Funny how they cannot see the flaw in their logic.

Bradky on April 27, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Obama needs 270 electoral votes to win. It’s interesting to note 18 states have voted for the Democratic candidate in every presidential election from 1992 onwards… Yup, even mediocre Romney-esque stiffos like Gore and Kerry managed to win those.

If Obama manages to hang on to these perennial Blue states, he will start with 238 EVs i.e. 88% of the required total. He will then need to collect 32+ electoral votes from a pool of 190 EVs where the Democratic candidate has won at least once since 1996.

MARCU$

mlindroo on April 27, 2012 at 10:48 AM

It really is difficult to understand the motivation of those commenters who here claim to be conservatives, and yet remain as dedicated as ever to shrilly posting diatribe after tired diatribe, personally attacking Mitt Romney, and attempting to undercut his candidacy.

The primary race is over. So what is your object now?

Are you such sore losers that you actually want him to lose so you can say, “Told you so!” come November 6th??

Or, are you just mentally incapable of acknowledging that it is over yet — i.e., you’re still locked in a state of denial without a key . . . or a clue?

Or, are you really rooting for Obama to win?

Trochilus on April 27, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Clearly Rove hates Romney. Who couldn’t beat this straw-man Rove has created?

rpupton on April 27, 2012 at 10:14 AM

No, Rove just hates conservatives. They think for themselves and don’t tote the party line just for the sake of it. Anyone who can’t compromise their principles and follow orders is dirt in Rove’s play book. That’s why he likes Romney – it’s a win/win for him and the establishment win or lose. For the democrats also, for that matter.

mozalf on April 27, 2012 at 11:09 AM

Meaningless Rove chatter, meaningless article (I can give you my own map if you want to see it – so can everyone else who reads this article). He is a white-board attention whore and I couldn’t give a crap about any noise that comes from HuffPo.

If moderate Romney loses I hope this is will mean the demise of the Republican party. It will finally be time for true conservatives who have continually gotten the shaft to bolt once and for all and leave the moderate inside-the-beltway party-hack crows to fight over the fetid flesh of the dead animal.

AttaBoyLuther on April 27, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Maybe I’m an eternal optimist, but I do not believe that the voters in this Country are this stupid. Even most of the Democrats (those who are not ideologues) that I know, cannot stand Obama. They are embarrassed by him, and think he’s an idiot. BTW, I live in a very Hispanic, Democrat County, so I know alot of Democrats.

Susanboo on April 27, 2012 at 9:08 AM

Seriously? Yet they keep electing the incompetent, corrupt and unqualified time after time.

It’s all about who has the better soundbites and Obama’s msm network has a lock on that.

rightConcept on April 27, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Here’s what I think.
Obama is going to say the same things to those liberals disenfranchised with him for not being far-left enough, that he said to the Russian president. Namely, that he will be free to do all those things he promised them after he is re-elected, because he will not have to worry about being seen as “too far left or radical”.
I know, he already is too far left and radical. But imagine Obamacare, bailouts, and more unaccountable “czars”, on steroids and without any restraints.

The best we could hope for in this scenario is that republicans take control of the house AND senate. Though I think even then he and his minions would find a way to go around the proper procedure and get his policies implemented. I mean, why would he stop now?!

So he will tell the disenfranchised liberals that even though he didn’t do what he said he would for them last term, he will blame it on “obstruction” from republicans. And the idiots listening to him will buy it, and will vote for him again. Then he will be free to finish destroying America as we know it. And if he isn’t able to turn America into the socialist utopia that he wants, then he will destroy it completely. He doesn’t seem to be the kind to take no for an answer. Selfish and narcissistic.

I don’t think most of the mindless drones out there really want America to be turned into some anarchic nation. They’ve watched too many movies with that kind of scenario and must think that it would be “cool”. But once it would happen, they would find out that anarchy is not “fun”. After all, how can you post your rants on the internet when the power grid is destroyed or fluctuating, nor get your latte fix when all the Starbucks have been demolished by looters?!

Trouble is, getting them to realize that and vote for the other guy(which may stave this outcome off for at least a few years) is tough when you are being promised lots of “free stuff”, for people who have been conditioned to think they are entitled to everything for “free”.

Unfortunately, they do not know the true meaning of the word, Free.
But after Obama is re-elected, some of them WILL come to know the meaning of the opposite. And their part in it as the pawns they are.

Sterling Holobyte on April 27, 2012 at 11:38 AM

The Republicans are in denial that the electorate has changed. Conservatives and libertarians are not neceesarily their base any longer. The primary exit polls all reflect that Romney wins the moderate/liberal vote, and in the later primaries the conservative turnout is very low. Many conservatives and libertarians have left the Republican Party and become Independents or unaffiliated.

The Republican Establishment, in which I include people like Rove, Coulter, Ingraham, the Washington Examiner, et al., might regret taking their base for granted. They have a lot to do to get people to show up to vote FOR Romney instead of just against Obama. Mark Levin stated yesterday regarding Rove’s analysis that he is willing to help drag Romney over the finish line, but he needs Romney to start talking about some conservative principles conservatives can vote for. So far, crickets.

lea on April 27, 2012 at 11:44 AM

If moderate Romney loses I hope this is will mean the demise of the Republican party. It will finally be time for true conservatives who have continually gotten the shaft to bolt once and for all and leave the moderate inside-the-beltway party-hack crows to fight over the fetid flesh of the dead animal.

AttaBoyLuther on April 27, 2012 at 11:20 AM

And if that happens, they have only themselves to blame. Most conservatives I know are now Independents who would gladly vote Republican if they ran a conservative. Yes, many will vote against Obama, but that’s not how you win. Romney doesn’t have a great record at winning elections.

lea on April 27, 2012 at 11:51 AM

He’s “electable” and conservatives are statistically unimportant. Anyone remember the Mittbots telling us “we don’t need your vote”? And the rather filthy name calling of Palin, Gingrich and Santorum?

I do hope the oh so electable Mr. Romney has scheduled an appointment with Palin, Gingrich and Santorum. Something he should have done the day after he gave his acceptance speech. As good as it was, it won’t win the election.

He’d best start rebuilding those bridges…and fast.

Portia46 on April 27, 2012 at 12:01 PM

conservative tarheel on April 27, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Well, I certainly understand what you’re saying.

But remember that those years in the “Carter wilderness” were indeed very painful.

The factual foundation, or “basis” on which Ronald Reagan made his case to the American people, was carefully and repeatedly laid with references to Arthur Okun’s “misery index” — looking at both inflation and unemployment as a combination of factors creating conditions of social upheaval.*

And interests rates just added to that bitter brew. In people’s minds, inflation actually becomes worse than unemployment in such conditions.

Gas and fuel prices right now are laying a broad foundation for a serious bout of inflation, across the board.

For the first time in a very, very long time (since Carter) the “misery index” has risen well up into whole numbers — it is currently at 4.26 and rising. Under Carter, it was at 7.00. The worst post-war number was actually under Nixon (9.21).

What finally got through to the public consciousness back in 1980 — accurately reflecting the concerns of the American people — was when Ronald Reagan looked into the camera during his summation in his one and only debate with Carter, and asked:

“Are you better off today than you were four years ago?”

That was it. All of the last major polls had actually predicted a tight race going into that final week, and, in two cases, (Gallup & CBS/NYTimes) their surveys showed Jimmy Carter slightly ahead!

Reagan, however, won in a landslide in a three-man race, besting Carter by 10 points, and leaving John Anderson in the dust (6.6%), a mere footnote to history. Electorally, Reagan chalked up the largest ever victory for a non-incumbent in all of American History!

(* In a way, the focus on Okun’s “misery index” was a posthumous nod to the insight of the economist, who had died of heart failure at the age of 51 in the spring of 1980, before the general election cycle got underway.)

Trochilus on April 27, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Trochilus on April 27, 2012 at 12:18 PM

What finally got through to the public consciousness back in 1980 — accurately reflecting the concerns of the American people — was when Ronald Reagan looked into the camera during his summation in his one and only debate with Carter, and asked:

“Are you better off today than you were four years ago?”

Mona Charen makes a valid counterpoint: Reagan won in 1980 at a time when the electorate was more white, male, married, less multi-ethnic, less government-dependent *but* facing higer taxes.

MARCU$

mlindroo on April 27, 2012 at 12:33 PM

Here is the link to a short clip containing the two key moments from that October 29th debate between Reagan and Carter, back in 1980. The first portion shows Reagan countering Carter’s attack against him for having opposed Medicare — his “There you go again!” line.

The second portion of the debate contained in this clip, beginning at about “1:15″ on the time meter, shows Reagan asking his key questions during his summary.

It’s a beautiful thing!

Trochilus on April 27, 2012 at 12:35 PM

mlindroo on April 27, 2012 at 12:33 PM

All of those things Mona Charen points to may well be true. And I am sure that they may well account for some differences in the way people will approach this election.

However, not one (or any combination thereof) of those elements can explain one of the major points I was making in my comment above regarding the solidification of Reagan’s support right at the end of the campaign, as a result of the electorate focusing in on the economy.

Amongst the final national polls, taken in late October (most from the 21st to the 26th) two of them showed Reagan with a slight lead, and two of them showed Carter with a slight lead.

As predictors of the outcome on November 6, 1980, those polls were ALL wrong.

Following their debate on the 29th, indications were that Reagan had won the debate, and exit polls on election day seemed to strongly bear that out. Indeed Reagan did win that debate!

Also, Jimmy Carter was a white, married, non-ethnic male as well. So, those elements didn’t necessarily favor him with the then-electorate, though I’ll concede that there are higher participation rates these days.

Reagan won in an unexpected landslide, with an electorate that was honing in on the economy.

Trochilus on April 27, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Portia:

Anyone remember the Mittbots telling us “we don’t need your vote”? And the rather filthy name calling of Palin, Gingrich and Santorum?

I remember getting body slammed for saying anything remotely favorable about Romney; nobody needs to remember the ugly attacks on Mitt, because they are still going on.

I do hope the oh so electable Mr. Romney has scheduled an appointment with Palin, Gingrich and Santorum. Something he should have done the day after he gave his acceptance speech.

Now that’s a remarkable complaint, when Romney has already hired Santorum’s campaign manager. I’d suggest that when you’re calling on Romney & his supporters start building bridges, you might at least quit calling them Mittbots.

You’re quite right that moderates cannot win the general election without the conservative vote. What conservatives seem utterly unwilling to acknowledge is that they can’t win elections without the moderates they vilify, either. I’m not sure why they insist on calling themselves the Republican base, when it’s moderates who reliably turn out every time, without needing to be coaxed into voting. Nor will you hear moderates announcing that they’ll do nothing but vote to help conservative candidates win. Perhaps we need an acronym for conservatives-in-name-only, if defeating Obama is not enough incentive to actively support the opposition nominee.

JM Hanes on April 27, 2012 at 1:13 PM

So why was Rove so intent on Romney getting the nomination? Senate races?

mankai on April 27, 2012 at 9:20 AM

Because Rove would have a place in a Romney admin and no place in a Gingrich admin.

Clearly Rove hates Romney.

rpupton on April 27, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Yes, that’s exactly why Rove raised over $65 million for his PAC and spent it all on attack ads against Romney’s competitors.

Romney is a loser. Gingrich would have had a better shot to win in a year where populism would sell well in swing states. But Rove/Fox/NR wanted Romney and they got him. Maybe, finally, this time people will learn that a Massachusetts moderate Republican has zero chance of winning anything on a national scale anymore. A Wisconsin or Kentucky moderate, maybe. Massachusetts moderate, no.

Nah, who am I kidding. They’ll blame the TrueConsTM and Palin. They’re always useful as a punching bag.

alwaysfiredup on April 27, 2012 at 1:40 PM

I’m not sure why they insist on calling themselves the Republican base, when it’s moderates who reliably turn out every time, without needing to be coaxed into voting.

JM Hanes on April 27, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Tell that to Christine O’Donnell and Doug Hoffman. You’re believing your own spin. Moderates often vote Dem rather than vote conservative Republican. Conservatives, if they don’t like the moderate, just don’t vote.

alwaysfiredup on April 27, 2012 at 1:43 PM

And if that happens, they have only themselves to blame. Most conservatives I know are now Independents who would gladly vote Republican if they ran a conservative. Yes, many will vote against Obama, but that’s not how you win. Romney doesn’t have a great record at winning elections.

lea on April 27, 2012 at 11:51 AM

I had been a registered Republican since 1975 ..
I left 18 years ago … registered Independent …
I am going to vote against Obama …

conservative tarheel on April 27, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Maybe I’m an eternal optimist, but I do not believe that the voters in this Country are this stupid. Even most of the Democrats (those who are not ideologues) that I know, cannot stand Obama. They are embarrassed by him, and think he’s an idiot. BTW, I live in a very Hispanic, Democrat County, so I know alot of Democrats.

Susanboo on April 27, 2012 at 9:08 AM

Seriously? Yet they keep electing the incompetent, corrupt and unqualified time after time.

It’s all about who has the better soundbites and Obama’s msm network has a lock on that.

rightConcept on April 27, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Wow! And YOU certainly are not an optimist! Go ahead and have that attitude, and I guess as far as your concerned, you are going to skip the voting booth this election since you think Obama’s going to win anyway.

Romney was my third or fourth choice in this primary, and I live in Texas, so I haven’t even voted yet, but I’m not going to screw my Country by voting for someone who is no longer in the running for POTUS, or not vote at all, just because you or Karl Rove think we can’t win. I have faith in the competent citizens of this Country to overcome the incompetents and oust this idiot out of office.

The United States of America’s existence “as we know it” hinges on our coming together and voting for Romney, who is our nominee, whether you and I like it or not. So, you can sit around and whine about it, or get up and help us win this thing. ANYONE is better than Obama, and we need to stop the bleeding in November, because by 2016 it’ll be too late.

Susanboo on April 27, 2012 at 3:07 PM

There is no way Obama will win North Carolin,a South Carolina, or Missouri. Rove has either lost his mind, or he is playing mind games.

Texas only “leans” Romney? Barry lost it by more than 10 points in 2008!

Colony14 on April 27, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Romney is the only human being on the planet who has a chance of removing Barack Obama and his entire corrupt, dastardly, rotten-to-the-core administration from power.

alchemist19 on April 27, 2012 at 6:45 AM

So now it takes a wishy washy liberal to defeat a steadfast liberal? I highly doubt that:

Romney’s campaign was effective in portraying Kennedy as soft on crime, but had trouble establishing its own positions in a consistent manner.[97] By mid-September 1994, polls showed the race to be approximately even.[87][98][99] Kennedy responded with a series of attack ads, which focused both on Romney’s seemingly shifting political views on issues such as abortion and on the treatment of workers at the Ampad plant owned by Romney’s Bain Capital.[87][100][101] The latter was effective in blunting Romney’s momentum.[63] Kennedy and Romney held a widely watched late October debate without a clear winner, but by then Kennedy had pulled ahead in polls and stayed ahead afterward.[102] Romney spent $3 million of his own money in the race.[nb 10]

In the November general election, despite a disastrous showing for Democrats overall, Kennedy won the election with 58 percent of the vote to Romney’s 41 percent,[49] the smallest margin in Kennedy’s eight re-election campaigns for the Senate.

Now we can watch history repeat yet again.

DannoJyd on April 27, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Romney was not my choice, but I will support him vigorously. Early om I see some promising signs in his messaging and how he interacts with a hostile MSM.

When he wins in November, and he will, I hope all the pompous know it all typists here at HA who put him down come back and explain themselves.

Red State State of Mind on April 27, 2012 at 10:40 PM

Wisconsin is in turmoil. Walker must win for Rodney to have a chance.

psychocyber on April 28, 2012 at 1:02 PM

DannoJyd:

Now we can watch history repeat yet again.

I know I’ve learned a lot in the nearly two decades since 1994; haven’t you? The only thing I’d fault Romney for so long ago would be thinking that anybody could beat Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts. If you’re looking for history to repeat itself, the Bay State did elect him as their CEO.

alwaysfiredup:

Tell that to Christine O’Donnell and Doug Hoffman.

I’ll give you O’Donnell’s run for the Joe Biden seat — in one of the most sui generis races in history. Doug Hoffman (who actually blamed ACORN for his defeat), ran on a third party ticket against the Republican nominee, who only suspended her campaign 4 days before the election, too late to affect the pivotal absentee vote.

Gingrich would have had a better shot to win in a year where populism would sell well in swing states.

Right. The candidate who won 0 (zero) delegates in Ohio, Arizona, Iowa, New Hampshire, Flordia, and Michigan would have positively swept to victory in the swing states.

JM Hanes on April 28, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7