UGA Presidential Discussion Group – May2, 2012

UGA Presidential Discussion Group – May2, 2012

Our session this week diverged from past sessions. We pulled up the site at www.270towin.com. It has an electoral map of the states. Any state that is at least leaning toward one party as designated by Real Clear Politics and Larry Sabato are designated red or blue accordingly. At present 23 states are designated red for a total of 191 electoral votes and 18 states plus DC are colored blue for a total of 227 electoral votes. That calculation leaves 9 swing states (NV, CO, IA, OH, PA, VA, NC, NH & FL) for 120 electoral votes that are up for grabs. We looked at possible states that could flip such as AZ & MO from red to blue and WI, MI, OR & MN which could flip from blue to red. We noted that WV has been reliably blue but is now solidly red. When both Democratic Senators announcing that they would have trouble voting for Obama, I guess we can’t expect much else from the state. By exploring some options we concluded that Obama wins if he can win 2 of the big 3 states (FL, OH, PA), and Romney needs 2 of those 3 plus VA to win.

Paul had a different prediction based on historical data of adjusted margins from the 2000, 2004 and 2008 Presidential elections by the two parties. The states with less than 10% margins in favor of the Republicans are NC (8.7%), AZ (8.4%), MO (4.7%), VA (2.9%), FL (1.9%), OH (1.1%) and CO (0.8%).  States favoring Democrats are MI (8.4%), OR (7.3%), NM (5.4%), WI (5.1%), PA (4.8%), MN (4.6%), NH ( 2.8%), IA ( 2.7%) and NV (2.7%). It is not a coincidence that all the swing states and all but MI that we listed above are included in the 16 states from Paul’s historical list.

The importance of this analysis is to see which states the campaigns and their superPACs will funnel their money. Early on, most if not all of the 16 states in the previous paragraph will be in play. Polling data will be used to see if other states will be targeted or if a campaign plans to pull out of that state. Most campaigns are interested in making sure they get to the 270 electoral votes. Some candidates look to roll up big majorities in the Electoral College to gain a mandate, but the campaigns are looking for the majority.

Romney’s choice for VP was discussed; Rob Portman and Marco Rubio were considered because of their ability to potentially bring their home states with them, both of which are critical swing states. It was debated whether Rubio would resonate with Latino voters generally, or if his appeal is limited to Cuban Americans. The consensus was for the latter. Also, Rubio seems to have a number of small issues that would be exposed during the vetting process, potentially dominating the news cycle for some time. Therefore, timing was considered; if Romney chooses Rubio early he can get the vetting process out of the way and continue campaigning, if he waits until just before the convention, the media won’t have as much time to research and scrutinize his past. Plus the media will have something else to cover, taking some of the focus from Rubio.

Portman seems like a much safer choice, but not necessarily the best one.
It was also suggested that Romney would benefit from choosing someone with a defense background, since that is one area where his campaign is lacking, and doing so could potentially help him win Virginia and Nevada. It is becoming clearer that Obama will play up his foreign policy accomplishments, and Romney will need someone to help him with defense conservatives. One strategy could be to continue pushing the narrative, “Obama is trying to distract you from the real issue – the economy”.

There was general consensus that Romney is still defining himself, that most aren’t following the campaign closely, and that because of this his VP choice is critical. Obama’s probable strategy was discussed - Call Romney a moderate or a radical conservative, forcing him to take a position and then labeling him a flip-flopper either way. “Trust” is the theme.