Michael Tomasky on the (Possible) Coming Obama Landslide

[babylonsister]

From his fingertips...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/04/michael-tomasky-on-the-possible-coming-obama-landslide.html


Michael Tomasky on the (Possible) Coming Obama Landslide
by Michael Tomasky Aug 4, 2012 4:45 AM EDT


Liberals don’t want to jinx it. It terrifies the right. And the press would prefer a nail-biter. But the fact is that finding Romney’s path to victory is getting harder every day.

There’s a secret lurking behind everything you’re reading about the upcoming election, a secret that all political insiders know—or should—but few are talking about, most likely because it takes the drama out of the whole business. The secret is the electoral college, and the fact is that the more you look at it, the more you come to conclude that Mitt Romney has to draw an inside straight like you’ve never ever seen in a movie to win this thing. This is especially true now that it seems as if Pennsylvania isn’t really up for grabs. Romney’s paths to 270 are few.

snip//

The list of states where Obama holds that narrow but consistent lead is long: Ohio, Virginia, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada, and New Hampshire. Michigan and Wisconsin are no longer really narrow. Florida is more or less a dead heat. The bottom line is that of the dozen or so key swing states, Romney leads only in one: North Carolina. And that lead developed only over the summer. We’ll see whether the Democrats’ decision to convene in Charlotte has any impact on Romney’s three-point margin.

All this explains the interesting little chart toward the lower right-hand corner of Nate Silver’s home page, headed “Electoral Vote Distribution.” It rates the probability that Obama receives a certain number of electoral votes. Most outcomes, in a range running from 150 EV’s up to 400, rate around a 2 percent chance of Obama receiving that number. The highest spike on the chart? It’s at around 330 EV’s, which Silver reckons Obama has a 14 percent chance of hitting. Now, most political journalists would chuckle derisively at the idea that Obama is going to carry home 330 EV’s. Deride away. And while you do, bear in mind that Silver called 50 out of 51 states last time (counting D.C.; he missed only Indiana) and every single Senate race.

Sure, something big could happen to alter the dynamic completely. But we’ve watched these guys go, what, six or seven rounds now (out of 15). After seven rounds, you can pretty well tell some things. All the supposedly game-changing events of the last few weeks haven’t changed much of anything. This is a paradoxical situation that has little or no modern precedent, which makes it hard for people to accept. Liberals are too nervous to think it, reporters too intent on a “down to the wire” narrative, and conservatives too furious and disbelieving, but it’s shaping up to be true: An extremely close election that on election night itself stands a surprisingly good chance of being not that close at all.

[rfranklin]

1. How about a complete stunner...President Obama plus both houses...

Then maybe something can be accomplished.

[lapfog_1]

5. need at least 61 senators - not going to happen - n/t

[grantcart]

8. the filibuster, atleast as it now stands, is history. There will be a new cloture rule passed by

whoever runs the Senate when they pass the new rules at the begining of the new session.

It may allow for a longer closing period, a month, or it may reduce the number required for cloture (it used to be 66%) but it is going to be changed and it only takes a simple majority to do so.

[LiberalFighter]

13. 66%?

[grantcart]

34. current filibuster has only been in its current form 37 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture#History



[edit] History

A similar procedure was adopted in the United States. This was invoked for the first time on November 15, 1919,[5] during the 66th Congress, to end filibuster on the Treaty of Versailles.[6]

The cloture rule originally required a supermajority of two-thirds of all senators "present and voting" to be considered filibuster-proof.[7][8] For example, if all 100 Senators voted on a cloture motion, 67 of those votes would have to be for cloture for it to pass; however if some Senators were absent and only 80 Senators voted on a cloture motion, only 54 would have to vote in favor.[9] However, it proved very difficult to achieve this; the Senate tried eleven times between 1927 and 1962 to invoke cloture but failed each time. Filibuster was particularly heavily used by Democratic Senators from Southern states to block civil rights legislation.[10]

In 1975, the Democratic Senate majority, having achieved a net gain of four seats in the 1974 Senate elections to a strength of 61 (with an additional Independent caucusing with them for a total of 62), reduced the necessary supermajority to three-fifths (60 out of 100).[11] However, as a compromise to those who were against the revision, the new rule also changed the requirement for determining the number of votes needed for a cloture motion's passage from those Senators "present and voting" to those Senators "duly chosen and sworn". Thus, 60 votes for cloture would be necessary regardless of whether every Senator voted. The only time a lesser number would become acceptable is when a Senate seat is vacant. (For example, if there were two vacancies in the Senate, thereby making 98 Senators "duly chosen and sworn", it would only take 59 votes for a cloture motion to pass.)[9]

The new version of the cloture rule, which has remained in place since 1975, makes it considerably easier for the Senate majority to invoke cloture. This has considerably strengthened the power of the majority, and allowed it to pass many bills that would otherwise have been filibustered.[citation needed] (The Democratic Party held a two-thirds majority in the 89th Congress of 1965, but regional divisions among Democrats meant that many filibusters were invoked by Southern Democrats against civil rights bills supported by the Northern wing of the party). Some senators wanted to reduce it to a simple majority (51 out of 100) but this was rejected, as it would greatly diminish the ability of the minority to check the majority.[citation needed]

[LonePirate]

30. The only guaranteed way the filibuster is rescinded is if the Rs win both houses and the Presidency

The Dems will not remove it, especially not if the Senate remains under Democratic control by a vote or two. Those chances are even less if control of either house does not change.

[grantcart]

35. They changed it before and they can change it again.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/07/18/reid-defends-vow-to-change-filibuster-rules-next-year/



Reid has already admitted it was a mistake not getting it changed before.



REID: The filibuster is not part of our constitution, it came about as a result of our wanting to get legislation passed, and now it’s being used to stop legislation from passing.

SCHULTZ: But you’d change the rules…

REID: Oh, we could have done it in the last Congress. But I got on the Senate floor and said that I made a mistake and I should have helped with that. It can be done if Obama is re-elected, and I can still do it if I have a majority, we can do it with a simple majority at the beginning of the next Congress.

SCHULTZ: Think the President will go along with that?

REID: You damn betcha.

[alfredo]

43. Of course McConnell will try to block any rule change.

[grantcart]

56. Only need 51 votes to pass a rule change at the begining of a new session.

[alfredo]

58. I bet McConnell will find a way to run out the clock.

I think they should go back to the old way of filibustering.

[DallasNE]

52. I Agree, But Only If

The Senate and Whitehouse belong to the same party. If they are of different parties the filibuster rule will not change.

[Grown2Hate]

11. Unless Reid is NOT bluffing about tightening the restriction on the filibuster rule (as long as we

hold the Senate).

[Spitfire of ATJ]

26. "Then maybe something can be accomplished."

When Bush was in power the media gleefully sucked up to him and Republicans and used the excuse that it gained them access to those in charge. When Democrats are in power the media puts Republicans on the air almost exclusively and criticize Democrats with the excuse that they are holding government accountable.

Obama won 365 to 173 and had the highest attendance in history for an inauguration:

[img][/img]

But if you listen to the media, that was made null and void by the mid-term when the Democrats lost a bunch of Blue Dogs and the GOP got a bunch of Tea Party millionaires.

The media is CONVINCED the country is "center/right" and anything that proves otherwise is considered to be an oddity.

[jillan]

2. We can't afford to get lazy. Volunteer, donate, whatever you can do because $$$$$ is on their side.

We need to make this landslide happen.

[Amonester]

10. Yes. And for all potential first-time lurkers, here's (one of) the link(s):

http://www.barackobama.com

Happy Birthday Mr. President!

[Patiod]

44. And if you're in PA, check that your ID and voter registration match exactly

Get a new registration if they don't.

If you don't have ID, get an absentee ballot.

Get absentee ballots for EVERYONE you know who might possibly run into any potential difficulty on election day.

This is going to be a clusterfuck if the Republicans don't lose in the courts.

[jenmito]

3. Electoral-vote.com has Obama at 332 EVs:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

[sofa king]

4. I'm stickin' with my own outlier: 413

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=39677

My rationale in the link above has only been reinforced by subsequent events. Of course, this is a "when the election is held" guess, not an "if it were held today" projection.

So we shall see.

[stopbush]

6. The Rs have staked the entire election on the bad economy they created and continue to sustain

reflecting poorly on the President. But it's clear from all the polling that the electorate has given Obama a pass on the economy. A majority still - rightly - blame Junior for our economic woes. The Rs are believing a traditional political arithmetic that isn't operational this time around.

In short, the Rs have invested heavily in the political equivalent of believing AOL is still the go-to way of accessing the web.

[Ira]

7. Electoral college opinion maps hint at landslide possibility

The current average of 22 online Electoral College opinion maps is consistent with the possibility of an Obama landslide:
Obama 249
Romney 198
Tossups 91

No map, including Rasmussen, Real Clear Markets, Wall Street Journal or Washington Times, has assigned more than 206 electoral votes to Romney since these maps began to be published in the spring of 2011.

There are ten maps which publish a “no tossup” calculation, all of which currently show Obama well north of 270.

http://peanutgallerypolitical.blogspot.com/

[Tarheel_Dem]

16. Welcome to DU, Ira!

[vinny9698]

9. Three upcoming events that will shape the GOP race

The VP choice
The GOP convention speeches and speakers
The debates

[starroute]

17. I'm not sure any of those will have much effect

The list of VP possibilities being floated is uninspiring, to say the least. It seems like most Republicans with any ambitions would rather wait and run on their own than be #2 in a floundering Romney campaign. And Romney is so robotic, he doesn't dare go for a surprise pick like Palin in 2008 who would upstage him.

The convention is running away as hard as possible from the Bush administration. So look for a hard-right platform, lots of red meat tossed to the base, and nothing to appeal to independents.

And the debates? Look for Mitt to duck the actual questions, rerun chunks of his campaign speeches whether they're relevant or not, and possibly stumble into some real wtf moments on foreign policy.

The GOP has no trump cards, no aces up their sleeve, no October surprises. They're flat broke, and they know it.

[speedoo]

19. The debates will effectively end MittTwitt's campaign.

Whatever he has left by then will be obliterated by Obama and his people. I expect a post-debate EV movement to Obama of at least 20-30 EV's.

[WI_DEM]

27. Agree, plus the economy

[Ian_rd]

12. Voter ID laws, voter purges, voter ID laws, voter purges, we ignore these at our peril

Polls are meaningless if voters are not allowed to vote.

[LiberalFighter]

14. There has been more exposure on these issues than in the past.

We have an incumbent President that didn't have to waste time with primaries and create their complete campaign much earlier. Keeping track of what is happening in each state and utilizing the resources they have at their disposal. State Party, politicians and political operatives.

There are ways to fight these laws and purges that don't involve the court. Making sure that our voters are registered and providing them the tools to check their status when available. Providing other methods to register voters. In Indiana, residents can register to vote online or change their address. If voting at the polling place is difficult encourage them to vote absentee by mail.

I don't believe the campaign is sleeping on the job.

[Patiod]

45. Local Dems are not flush with cash like the Rs are

We have to rely on volunteers, while the Republicans are swimming with money. Case in point, I was told that the PA Republican party sends out absentee ballot applications to ALL registered Rs in Pennsylvania.

We can't afford that, so we'll be going house to house in each of our districts, leaving absentee ballot applications wherever they are needed. Probably WAY more effective than a bunch of flyers that will get thrown away.

[Tarheel_Dem]

20. If voter ID is really a concern for you, please let friends and family know they can go to.....

gottavote.org and get all the information they need to have in order to cast a ballot. It's a really cool tool, and it's useful. They let you know what, if anything, you need to bring with you. If we can't get these laws overturned before election day, we can at least arrive at the polls prepared. There's also a Spanish language option.

[SILVER__FOX52]

28. I am most concerned about vote flipping ................

especially, in the States or Counties without a paper ballet, Audit Trial. This is where evil lurks for Obama. I don't know if you have heard but there is now suspicion that the Wisconsin recall was ................stolen................. via " vote flipping ". Do not under estimate the criminality of the GOP.

[DonCoquixote]

15. We can afford NO leeway

The GOP is not out to win an election, they are out to steal one by outright disenfranchising the people they think of as second class citizens anyway (in case you did not figure it out, that means US.)

Until Mitt gives up, the election is not won, period. These crumbs, and the media, will spin a crumb into a loaf; which means if there is so much as one fake story where one lone Romney voter says "they stole my vote!", there will be a call for revolution.

If you think they are not lining up the fake stories already in places like Florida and Ohio, you are naive; I can already see some old tea-bagger (the sort that gets their SS and medicare) practicing their lines, to the effect of "those mean black people and hippies were going to hurt me..." It will not matter how many times said story is proved as bunk, the folks in Dixie will want to believe it, and the book deals will be ready.

We have to come to grips with something; to us, things like the rule of law, citizen's rights, are part of a culture, to the GOP, they are just means to an end, or as W. put it, a "goddamned piece of paper." The only thing that will help us win is the willingness to fight until the very laws of physics say we cannot.

[Dustlawyer]

18. They are going to rig the electronic voting system! There are really no defenses set up.

Not like they have for credit card systems. Why is that?in 2004 in Ohio they rigged the election and got caught. One of the guys that could have linked it o Rove died mysteriously in a plane crash right after the fraud was identified. With so much money being spent, do you think a couple of million won't be spent to do this?

[asjr]

24. I must agree with you. Somehow, by hook or crook

the Republicans just may win. They practically own the voting machines. And if any state--particularly Florida-- uses the ballots that cause chads or other abnormalities, we wll lose. If they win civil war in this country will occur. I am old enough to remember political crooks but I also am too old to go through it again.

[groundloop]

21. But without both the Senate AND House, AND a way around the filibuster......

Of course it's great that President Obama is going to win by a wide margin, but without everything else falling into place we'll just have more gridlock with nothing much getting done. Of course the repubs will be more than happy with 4 more years of gridlock, they'll be able to point to Democratic "inaction" during the previous 4 years come 2016.

It's sad how many Americans seem to think that the President can single handedly make things happen, and when a gridlocked Congress prevents progress they point to the President. Unfortunately, unless we take back the House that's where we'll be.

[mwooldri]

22. Having lived through the 1992 UK General Election...

I have decided you just cannot rely on polling surveys. In 1992 those surveys predicted a Labour win. Through the night it flipped to a Hung Parliament, and then a Conservative win. It's paper ballots, carefully overseen and counted by hand. No machines to rig, no ballot box stuffing.

The pollsters get it wrong. However if Mr. Silver is correct in his assumptions I will be pleased. For now, hoping for the best. Chickens cant be counted just yet.

[Douglas Carpenter]

23. It is still possible Romney could win, But I agree an Obama landslide is entirely possible

I just don't want to jinx the whole thing with overconfidence.

[Ironblood]

25. depends on who counts the votes

You could have 75% of the people casting votes vote for Obama, but if the company who owns the voting machines and the counting programs belongs to the Republican right wing, who will 'win'? That IS the case, incidentally ....

[Kalidurga]

29. "Rs have invested heavily in the political equivalent ....

...of believing AOL is still the go-to way of accessing the web."

Oh that is so true and so funny. Thank you StopBush.

If the Republicans really owned the voting machines do you really think they would be working so hard to disenfranchise voters with ID laws and other dirty tricks? I don't. I think they would just sit back and play nice and act shocked when their candidate won. They would site close polls or fake polls like Rassmussen. But, they would still act amazed you know cause it was so close and all. So, I am going with Obama wins in a landslide, both in the popular vote and the EV.

[gasser85]

48. Stalin

As Uncle Joe said and I paraphrase: The ones who caste the votes means nothing. The ones that count the votes means everything.

[juajen]

53. It's actually the central tabulators in each Parish or County and who controls the Clerk of Court in

that Parish or County. We learned so much from the Andy Stephenson days. I miss seeing his name on every one of my posts. Why did we lose that in the transition from old DU to new DU?

[mgcgulfcoast]

31. my prediction

obama +3 nationally.

[Drunken Irishman]

32. One thing I disagree with - Romney being up 188-182 by the time the west clocks in...

It's possible, I guess, but looking at closing times and electoral-rich states, my guess is that Obama holds the lead throughout much of the night - running up his score in reliably blue states that are electorally rich. Other states that will inevitably go Romney, won't go right off the bat - states like Georgia, South Carolina, Texas and maybe Tennessee (believe it or not). That will keep Romney's totals down similar to '08.

When we roll out west, I anticipate Arizona and Montana to be too close, or too early, to call at closing. So, my guess is that Obama leads 200-140 or something like that when the polls close in the West Coast. Could be more if Ohio really does break heavily for Obama (remember, it was called an hour or so before polls closed in California and if his margin is as big, or bigger, they'll call it again).

[underpants]

33. Whatever Obama’s number is at 10 pm Eastern, add those 78 EV’s—they’re a mortal lock

++++

[thecentristword]

36. His taxes may be a deciding factor....

[link:|

[Kurovski]

40. Well he certainly isn't hiding that tacky tie.

Gracious sakes alive. What's the point of going on an economic rampage against American workers if you won't at least knot a decent cravat around your elite gullet.

I've lost all respect for the old fool.

[agentS]

37. It'll be the Rethugicans fault if the Pres. wins in a landslide

Romney was the best they got, and boy does it show.

If he or any other Repub had a few less negatives, then this race would be much much closer. Obama would still likely win due to a few extraneous factors that a Repub would not be able to deal with.

Think of it as Blackjack. Obama started his term with something like a 7 and a 4, and based on his moves, got a 3 and 3 and is likely to finish his hand with a 17 (or an 18 if you change a 3 to another 4 if the jobs reports keep showing hiring).
The Republicans got something like 6 and A in 2010, bet twice and busted at 23 (thanks to poor leadership, bad planning, and being overall jerks).

The game is still young and the cards could change but short of another Gulf Oil spill or Lewinsky there isn't a whole lot of difficult challenges that could negatively affect the president coming down the pipe in 3 months.

The Rethugs, meanwhile, have made too many unforced errors. Voters forgive some screwups, but not week and week of screwups. That's adding up and I think the numbers in the polls and Electoral college are showing that.

Low info voters are not no info voters. The more a candidate screws up, the more likely the low info voters will hear about it, and make them think twice. They may not consume a lot of news but they consume some news...

[davidpdx]

38. Even if you look at the worst case scenario which is RCP

Obama has 247, with 100 tossups. That would mean he needs 23. The combination for those 23 could be had by as little as one state (Florida) or 2-4 out of the 8 states. Romney would need Florida, Ohio and then a combination of at least 3 other states after that. Personally I think if he can't win Florida AND Ohio he's screwed.

[Kurovski]

39. ...to Boze's ear.

Got your mail...thank you sweet cheeks.

[daybranch]

41. Not the point.

You like most of the media believe that our political attention should be solely focused on OBama's election. Do you not recognize that if Obama is reelected , the country may still face the destructiveness of the tea baggers and the corruption of Citizens United in state and local elections? Are you people with a voice in the media asleep at the wheel? Obama as he said is trying to keep the economy out of the ditch but so many are working against him.
Single minded focus on Obamas reelection is very very destructive and misses the point. What group fought hardest for Obama- Progressives. What group has seen their agenda most under attack? Progressives. What group is most necessary to stand up to right wing and tea party crazies? Progressives. What group supported many of Obamas current policies before he evolved? Progressives. When Obama says that if we want him to do something make him, who is it talking about eloecting to Congress? Certainly none but Progressives.
In Ohio , the contorted redistricting plan put in by a very unpopular governor and his cronies has resulted in little to no expected competition in the congressional districts. By this the repugnants are likely to be able to destroy chances of democratic and progressive victories although Obama may win big.
Too little is being said about Gerrymandering nationally and what its results may be- continued destruction of our economy in order to give more and more to the rich. Open up your minds, Obama is only a skirmish, the war against the middle class is everywhere. Wake up and fight .

[babylonsister]

42. I agree with you, but if

Romney gets elected, we will be going backwards. We NEED this President reelected=it's that important.

And welcome to DU!

[Patiod]

46. Good points all. Especially that last sentence.

I live in PA, and see the results of losing the state to Republicans, even though we outnumber them. We are so gerrymandered here in my county that Dems have decisively out-registered Republicans, and yet it is so badly gerrymandered that NOT ONE of our representatives to the state or federal legislature is a Democrat.

Multiply that by 50 states, and you see what we're up against.

But if we don't win at the top, we get more lifetime appointments of right wing "corporations are people" Justices, so we have to win that, too.

I frequently use "welcome to DU" as a "fuck you" to people I suspect are trolls. But you sound like the sort of actively fighting Progressive we need more of here on this board, so i offer you a sincere "Welcome to DU, daybranch"

[malthaussen]

50. We can but hope (and work, obviously.:))

Mr Obama is necessary in the WH to act as a brake if Congress continues to be a TP nightmare, but without creating some cracks in the sludge of the House, we're just looking at four more years of frustration. The American people need to get a clue that until we throw the rascals out, we're not going anywhere but down.

-- Mal

[bucolic_frolic]

47. Obama may well win, but ....

not much to cheer about in the House, Senate, or Governor's races.

So I have no idea how the word 'landslide' belongs here.

Obama is a great campaigner. He'll really have to turn on the jets to
put more Democrats in office. Not that he's not capable, but coattails
are one thing if you're winning 57% of the votes, quite another in the
50-52% carriage.

[grantcart]

49. Take the discredited Rasmussen out of the mix and polls are currently showing

losing NE and picking up MA in the Senate.

http://electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/Maps/Aug04-noras.html

And the campaign has just begun.

Everywhere Romney has campaigned his numbers go down.

Everywhere the President campaigns the numbers go up.

As Romney sinks he will have a big impact down ticket.

[hifiguy]

51. Mittwit is a black hole.

Any Repuke would be nuts to be seen on the same stage with him. Get too close and not even light can escape. And he has no reservoir of public goodwill. McCain did because he'd been a POW. The only person Mittwit reminds anyone of is the guy that fired them. His assholishness is the only genuine thing about him.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

57. The fun part for me...

is that Romney (until 2-3 years ago) didn't agree with Republicans on almost ANY issue -- except rich folks really need a tax cut. So as Romney goes around "championing" their causes like the Ryan Budget Plan, he's doing untold damage to their chances of getting re-elected.

At Republican events, the guy's about as welcome the plague...

[Sherman A1]

54. I have been saying this all along

Romney is a placeholder, The GOP is looking at 2016 and not this election cycle. They will shoot to control the House & Senate certainly and use those to block anything proposed by President Obama. They will also work out different means of voter suppression and campaign tactics courtesy of Citizens United, yet they are not trying to win this one.

Romney was the choice well before the primaries even started, however it is worth watching who he picks for VP as that could well be the set up for the next time around.

[nradisic]

55. I've been thinking this for a while

By looking at the state polls now, Obama is in the lad by way more than the margin of error in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Florida. Rmoney cannot win without ALL of those states going Red and that is not happening. We may just see the Democratic Party keep the Senate, White House and make gains in the House, which is exactly what this country really needs so we can start fixing things for real.