First EV Map of 2012

Larry Sabato takes a first stab at an electoral college map:  click.

It is, of course, insanely early, but is always fun nonetheless.

FILED UNDER: Quick Takes, US Politics
Steven L. Taylor
About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is a Professor of Political Science and a College of Arts and Sciences Dean. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog). Follow Steven on Twitter

Comments

  1. Neil Hudelson says:

    Hmm, not bad. I just can’t see Indiana being a toss-up. Even with the anger right now at the Ed Reform bills and the various Republican scandals (charlie white, ponzi schemes, etc) I think no amount of campaigning is going to push the state back to Obama.

    Unless I’ve missed a major population shift in the last 4 years that is.

  2. Trumwill says:

    I find it weird that Texas is in the “Likely R” category while Montana and the Dakotas are in the “Safely R” one. I understand the demographic argument, but it has never demonstrated it once at the ballotbox in the last 15 years whole the Dakotas had demonstrated a willingness to vote for Democrats and Montana was actually pretty close last time around. All are pretty likely to go red, but I would see the Dakotas and Montana switching (in the event of a landslide) before Texas.

  3. Trumwill says:

    Incidentally, I went on one of those electoral map programs and made my prediction. The result was Obama 284, Republican (Romney, I believe) 254. I am likely erring on the side of it being close, but it keeps things more interesting that way. And it’s all just guessing anyway.

  4. Neil Hudelson says:

    Trumwill,

    With Texas I think its closer than many believe. From what I know, of the biggest cities–Houston, Dallas, San Jose, Austin, El Paso and Fort Worth–the three largest and Austin are all heavily registered Democrat. In places like Houston, the Democrats have utterly failed at GOTV to capitalize on their population advantage, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be done.

    It would take a lot of hard work and money–the amount of which most campaigns don’t have. (Man that was an awkward sentence). If Obama raises the Billion+ that some are predicting, it could happen.

  5. Trumwill says:

    Neil, the biggest obstacle remains the white vote. Even in a multicultural state, it’s really, really difficult to win an election while struggling to win a third of the biggest voting block. The cities are often strongly Democratic, but the suburbs tend red in a pretty big way. Obama is well-poised to capitalize on the Hispanic vote, but the white vote is much trickier. And a large part of the Hispanic population is ineligible to vote (due to documentation and age).

  6. oldgulph says:

    By 2012, The National Popular Vote bill could guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    Every vote, everywhere would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn’t be about winning states. Every vote, everywhere would be counted 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 a handful of swing states.

    In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives already agree that, at most, only 14 states and their voters will matter under the current winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states. Candidates will not care about at least 72% of the voters- voters-in 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. 2012 campaigning would be even more obscenely exclusive than 2008 and 2004. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

    Since World War II, a shift of a handful of votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 13 presidential elections. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 6 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections. 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore’s lead of 537,179 popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 votes in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 Million votes.

    The bill would take effect only when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    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.

    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 is strong among Republican voters, Democratic voters, and independent voters, as well as every demographic group surveyed in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group 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 smaller 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%, 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, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, RI, VT, and WA. The bill has been enacted by DC, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA,VT, and WA. These 8 jurisdictions possess 77 electoral votes — 29% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

    http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

  7. Trumwill says:

    A part of me wants to oppose the NPV just to spite the spammenters.