What needs to be understood is that, this election is based largely on the economic downturn of 2008 and the continual shrinking of the economy coupled with the rise of unemployment, stock market lagging, the Euro-Zone in jeopardy from Greece, and largely investments. The current President, while being able to pull out of the Iraq Conflict and seemingly moving towards reducing the Afghanistan Conflict, has had very few wins (the DADT repeal, and the controversial Affordable Health Care Act) which have only split the nation and caused his ratings during his first term to hover close to 50 percent. Normally, a first term president is capable of holding a higher--albeit a medium rating of 50 percent to 60 percent of approval. President Obama established a high dominance of popular support and ratings during his first year in office. As several colleagues and I discuss continually, if he had planned his objectives correctly, the outcome of this election may not be so contentious. (We'll save this for another day.)
 |
| 2010 Census Apportionment of US House of Reps. |
First, to understand this cycle of elections we must first look at the numbers. The Electoral College represents a system that--albeit controversial to many--is old fashioned and highly misunderstood. The Electoral Map is considered in two forms: the apportionment of Congressional seats and the allotment of two Senatorial seats. These two allotments create the total value of the Electoral College at being 535 votes allowed. In any election 270 is necessary to capture the election for a president. So, why am I bringing this up? Well, the 2010 Census brought us some unique changes, several key states have either gained or lost at least1 or 2 seats. The photo from TPM and the U.S. Census Bureau show the states mostly affected by the changes in population. One of the key points here is that Florida and Texas have gained the more electoral votes and thus more Representatives in Congress. New York and Pennsylvania have lost 2 seats in each state. This has unique impact of Democratic Party control of the New England States and how it may not translate into an automatic win for President Obama. The Obama team will need to move outside of the more traditional states and attempt to advance into Republican territory as it did in 2008 and failed to do in 2004.
Yet, with the rising unpopularity among Independents and minorities that have been disenfranchised by the Democratic Party, Team Obama must reinvigorate its use of the youth vote just four years ago. Unfortunately, those same youth that catapulted him to the presidency may not be there. With the constant battles of political correctness and political infighting--now seen from the recent ads Team Obama has pushed against his confirmed frontrunner Team Romney. In the most recent polls, from RealClearPolitics, Team Obama has roughly 1 point lead, which leading up to the election means that the President has a much less change than he did almost a year ago in polling data. Team Romney, since his primary competitors have all backed out, has a clear road to the nomination and can now directly focus on the President and his record of controversial items.
Second, we must look at the value of other factors, such as the entire elections on the entire congress.
"This means a disproportionately high number of Democrats seats are up for grabs in 2012. Including the two Independent Senators who caucus with the Democrats, the party has twenty-three seats to defend. In contrast, the GOP has only ten. This is significant for obvious reasons. Republicans have to defend less than half the seats of their opponents. Their opponents will have to allocate more time and resources than they would like. In addition, there is less opportunity for Democrats to take Republican seats as a hedge against possible losses (luckily for liberals, a few of the seats on the Republican side happen to be competitive- more on that later)."A quote from an article by Kyle Romines, above, clearly depicts the problem for Democrats.Money is key and paramount to this electoral fight. The Democratic National Convention, in effect, will not only outspend Republicans, but must in essence fund itself in a highly competitive race. It could in the end, leave the DNC with a massive debt bill that it will need to fix before the midterm elections. In this scenario, Republicans would need to capture four seats, with keeping its ten, to seal a majority vote to unseat the Democratic controlled Senate from 2006. The Senate plays a much bigger role than some consider, especially with nominations for Supreme Court appointments, treaties, and other items that must be sent to the Senate for approval. In the Senate race, Democrats have a large possibility of losing those four seats needed to retain a majority--if the President wins reelection and maintains the tie-breaker vote of Vice-President Biden. If, of course, Romney wins the election, Republicans would only need three seats to retain majority as the Senate would be tied fifty votes to fifty in a party lineup.
Finally, let's consider the impact of the last four years for this election. President Obama had seemingly wooed the populous and somewhat can by his ability of speech. Yet, this does not always translate into votes. In all of what President Obama wanted to do, he has achieved two items: health care reform and pulling out of Iraq. While some would stipulate his push for LGBT rights, through the DADT repeal, it has done little to improve the overall goal of LGBT advocates--at least that is what some of my colleagues are stating independently. Therefore, it is not an achievement in the manner in the face of Affordable Health Care Act, etc. Obama may have been able to use minority politics as a cornerstone of his implementation, but beyond his vehement speeches and grandstanding, where are those policy initiatives? Not really anywhere beyond the minimal required. Would Republicans do the same? Yes, they have in the past to some constitutents and will most likely do it in the future. Moreover, what must be said is that this election is pivotal on two fronts: the decline of the populism of Obama and the increasingly dissatisfaction of any real policy changes.
Romney equally has a pivotal problem. Romney cast himself as the "moderate" among the other primary contenders, just as much as Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) claims. However, as many Republicans saw, through the primary season, that Romney was not clearly the choice--which could and probably will damage his chances among Republican voters in November. Romney--and equally McCain--are what some people call in the Republican Party a 'Liberal Republican.' These types tend to have more left-than-center views as an Moderate-Leaning Republican who identifies more so with the GOP on more than three policy issues, 'Liberal Republicans' tend to voice their alignment with the GOP in only one or two policy areas: usually foreign and economic policy. Romney, thus, has a deep uphill battle among Republican voters because their initial support was split between him and Rick Santorum, a more social and fiscal Republican. This split in votes will cost Romney a lot of support from the Republican base. This split of support coupled with his "flip-flop" policy decisions will definitely leave him attempting a balance act in the Convention to rally support and his decision of the Vice-President. Here, his Vice President could help him in his bid for the presidency.
In conclusion, the reality is simple. Each side has a deafening blow to both campaigns that will hinder their chances. Obama has an increasingly troubled approval rate in the midst of economic turbulence and erosion of some of his supporters from within Congress over his attacks on the free market policies. Romney has a plethora of problems that will largely be decided on his ability to pick a Vice Presidential candidate to calm those voters who nominally did not vote for him or refuse to vote for the 'Liberal Republican' facade. The predictions from polling data a clear in one aspect: this election will come down to the votes of the few. The 2012 election is not at this point decidable, and because of that we call it a toss-up in the Presidential election.Any one of them can win, they are equally on the same ground politically and realistically.
