2010 Census: Obama likely to lose Presidency in 2012.

[beautywickedlover]

Posted: 12/19/10 at 3:22pm

According to the 2010 Census things are not looking good for Barack Obama and the Democrats.

"The population continues to shift from Democratic-leaning Rust Belt states to Republican-leaning Sun Belt states, a trend the Census Bureau will detail in its once-a-decade report to the president. Political clout shifts, too, because the nation must reapportion the 435 House districts to make them roughly equal in population, based on the latest census figures.

The biggest gainer will be Texas, a GOP-dominated state expected to gain up to four new House seats, for a total of 36. The chief losers — New York and Ohio, each projected by nongovernment analysts to lose two seats — were carried by Obama in 2008 and are typical of states in the Northeast and Midwest that are declining in political influence.

November's elections put Republicans in control of dozens of state legislatures and governorships, just as states prepare to redraw their congressional and legislative district maps. It's often a brutally partisan process, and Republicans' control in those states will enable them to create new districts to their liking.

The combination of population shifts and the recent election results could make Obama's re-election campaign more difficult. Each House seat represents an electoral vote in the presidential election process, giving more weight to states Obama probably will lose in 2012. The states he carried in 2008 are projected to lose, on balance, six electoral votes to states that his GOP challenger, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, won. That sets a higher bar for Obama before his re-election campaign even starts.

The way the maps have shifted have made Obama's route to success much more difficult,' said Republican Party spokesman Doug Heye. He said the GOP takeover of several state governments on the eve of redistricting efforts was 'a dramatic shift.'

Republicans now control the governor's offices and both legislative chambers in competitive presidential states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Indiana, Maine and Wisconsin. They hold the governors' chairs in other crucial states, including Nevada, New Mexico, Virginia and Iowa.

When Obama carried those states in 2008, most had Democratic governors happy to lend their political operations to his cause. Now he will run where governors can bend their powers against his administration's policies and his campaign's strategies."

So much for Obama being a two-term President.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40739464/ns/politics/#




Updated On: 12/19/10 at 03:22 PM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/19/10 at 3:27pm

So much for Obama being a two-term President.


You are so right! I'm not even gonna vote now that census already has the results. Can they tell me who's gonna win in 2016 as well, because I think I have plans that day.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 12/19/10 at 4:49pm

Why don't we see who the GOP runs against Obama before we start making stupid predictions.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 12/19/10 at 6:49pm

Well, to be blunt, unless he starts getting it together a bit more, he's not gonna make it out of the primaries, regardless of who the GOP puts on the ticket.

Posted: 12/19/10 at 7:20pm

Yes, and at this point in Ronald Reagan's, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton's terms everyone KNEW they were doomed too. The only one everyone agreed was SURE to be elected was King George I, who was so popular after the Gulf War that no Democrat of consequence would run against him- What ever happened to that sacrificial lamb who ran against him in 1992?

The same exact census information proved that the Republicans had a lock on the White House and both houses of Congress from 2000-2030, also.

I don't know why we even bother to hold elections.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/19/10 at 7:28pm

Why say "Quote" "End Quote" AND leave an open quotation mark? I don't understand why the posters who post every single link they can find can't at least italicize what they are quoting.

[wonderwaiter]

Posted: 12/19/10 at 7:34pm

Changing square brackets to angle brackets is hard, yo.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/19/10 at 7:34pm

I think there are three reasons for this:

1) They don't know what they're doing, and

b) They think they're making themselves look smart.

[wonderwaiter]

Posted: 12/19/10 at 7:40pm

But editing the message makes it look like they were correct the whole time!



/end quote

[strummergirl]

Posted: 12/19/10 at 8:17pm

"Well, to be blunt, unless he starts getting it together a bit more, he's not gonna make it out of the primaries, regardless of who the GOP puts on the ticket."

Who's going to primary him? I think the days of a Ted Kennedy mounting a serious primary challenge against an incumbent in his own party are gone.

[madbrian]

Posted: 12/19/10 at 8:31pm

The possibility of a primary challenge was always a longshot, at best. With the repeal of DADT, it's nonexistent.

Regarding the census, the population shift to GOP states could have an impact in a very tight election. Any redistricting could have an impact on the future of the House, but has no impact on the Presidential election.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 12/19/10 at 9:30pm

Guys, you're talking a year down the road. *Anything* can happen in that time.

But he's done so much to PO the base that he's got some serious work to do. Repealing DADT is a nice start, but it aint fixing the economy. It's not ending the wars. It's not cutting into the unemployment rate. And those are the bigger issues that folks are gonna want to see some action on before they vote Democrat in 2012.

I dont want to see him go down in defeat, but the guy has got to start showing some backbone. Right now, he's not much better than his predecessor when it comes to getting things accomplished. No, dont trot out Healthcare Reform: that thing is a long, long way from perfect, and when he said Single Payer was off the table, he lost a lot of support in the process. Financial Reform, for all its bells and whistles, aint much better. So there's not a lot to show for two years, just a lot of Big Promises and Grand Gestures on the things that affect everyone.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 12/19/10 at 9:35pm

SeanMartin your post has nothing to do with whether Obama will face a primary challenge.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 12/20/10 at 12:17am

Okay, let's try this again, since reading comprehension seems to be an amateur sport around here sometimes.

The Dems arent going to nominate someone they think will lose. Ergo, come the primaries, they're gonna be looking for candidates they feel are strong enough to wake up the base. If Obama aint it, he wont do well in the primaries, which means he very well may not be a candidate, which means he will be a one-term president.

Clearer now?

[adamgreer]

Posted: 12/20/10 at 12:53am

The only Dem who could mount a serious primary challenge to Obama in 2012 won't run against her boss.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/20/10 at 1:56am

I think SeanMartin is speaking as though an actual Democratic primary is a foregone conclusion, maybe? And that's not the case, right? There were no serious challengers to Bush on the right in 2004, were there?

[JerseyGirl2]

Posted: 12/20/10 at 2:56am

How long has it been since an incumbent pres faced a primary? No one will run AGAINST Obama.

[madbrian]

Posted: 12/20/10 at 7:00am

The last three one-term presidents were: GHW Bush, Carter, and Ford. What do they all have in common? Serious primary challenges from within their own party. Bush was challenged by Buchanan, Carter by Kennedy, and Ford by Reagan. Now, of course, there are other factors to consider in their defeats, but the primary challenge can not be ignored. The Dems may be awful at governing, but they're pretty good at history, and virtually certain not to allow a serious challenge to Obama.

Updated On: 12/20/10 at 07:00 AM

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 12/20/10 at 7:04am

You guys can say that now, but the mid-term was a clarion for the Dems to feel like they have to run scared. They no longer control the House. They no longer have a supermajority in the Senate. The polling numbers for their boss are way down there -- even though the guy has done some solidly good stuff. You all forget that he came pretty much out of nowhere: a one term state senator who didnt even finish his time in Illinois before he was thrown out there as a candidate. If it happened once, it can happen again.

I woujld happily bet next week's paycheque that, over the holidays, the Big Brass of the party are gonna be shopping around a little and dropping a few hints here and there to see who might want to go for it. Obama isnt (forgive the somewhat tasteless pun) bulletproof, and this is not 2004.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/20/10 at 10:02am

Your political analysis falls short, SeanMartin.

The Democratic congressional losses are partly an expression of voter discontent and partly result of the natural ebb-and-flow of American politics. The percentages attributable to each factor are debatable, since popularity ebbs and flows.

You analysis is also faulty because you use the census data about Red State/Blue State populations as if the color of each state was fixed. It is not. States changed in the last presidential election, they will continue to change in the next gubernatorial and congressional elections, and there's no way of knowing in December 2010 what the climate (or the economy) will be like in November 2012.

But mostly your analysis falls short because you fail to take into consideration the complete lack of a charismatic Republican who could unite the moderate Republicans and the social conservatives to a great enough degree to beat an incumbent.

Each one of the Republican presidential possibilities is a loser: Romney, Palin, Huckabee, Pawlenty,...Jindal...Mitch Daniels.

Not a one of them could win. Romney's a Mormon, which would alienate the Christians, Palin and Huckabee would energize a Democratic turnout, and the three Republican governors are as dull as dishwater.

Next time, think a little deeper before making political predictions.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 12/20/10 at 10:09am

I don't think we'll really know the situation until about 6 months before the election. A lot is based on the economy. If there's still a 10% unemployment rate, a lot of people without jobs are going to mount an "anyone but Obama" campaign. Having a job is the key thing. What good is same sex marriage if you don't have money to afford a wedding?

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 12/20/10 at 10:09am

They never had a supermajority in the senate. They had two independents caucusing with them, but one was not reliable, and then with the Coakley fiasco, any thought of a super-majority was gone.

I have a feeling that these next two years will be more about the Dems finding a voice as opposed to resorting to a fetal position. I also have a feeling that the GOP will self-destruct from in-fighting. Obama and the Dems now have someone to blame for the policies not passing (in a much more easy argument) and I think that will bring out his voice.

And, the polling numbers for Obama are no different than Reagan or Clinton during their first terms. When compared against actual prospective GOP candidates, he does fine.

I see a third party candidate far more likely than a primary challenge to Obama. The only candidate who could primary Obama is Clinton, and I think she is settled in her choices. Though, I could see her being VP for the second term, and that would be quite fine with me.

And, since I am in a mood - perhaps our reading comprehension is somewhat challenged since you swing between primaries and the GE in your analysis.

I will bet you right now $100 that there will be no Primary against Obama. The loser pays the proceeds to BC/EFA.

[tazber]

Posted: 12/20/10 at 10:22am

There will be all kinds of talk (thank you media!) about a possible challenger to Obama, but in the end no one will.

I totally agree about a 3rd party candidate. And I think we all know who that will be (hint - she's a quitter)

The census will no doubt have some impact on the democrats what with all the gerrymandering that will go on over the next two years. Between that and a split conservative base the 2012 election beyond prediction at this point.

And the most important factor will be how the new congress deals with the economy. If they fall into gridlock it only muddies the crystal ball even more.

More importantly, let's discuss who will win the best actor Tony in 2012. Will Raul finally get his due?

Updated On: 12/20/10 at 10:22 AM

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 12/20/10 at 11:00am

>> You analysis is also faulty because you use the census data about Red State/Blue State populations as if the color of each state was fixed. It is not. States changed in the last presidential election, they will continue to change in the next gubernatorial and congressional elections, and there's no way of knowing in December 2010 what the climate (or the economy) will be like in November 2012.

The census report will be released by end of year, and it's already showing a swing in population increases towards red states: Texas, Florida, and the like -- which means more representation in Congress for them (and less for blue states, BTW), which means more Republican-controlled seats in the Electoral College. The Republicans have control of most state legislatures, which means that they will redraw district lines to favour their own, which wil do its little best to insure even more GOP support come 2012.

>> But mostly your analysis falls short because you fail to take into consideration the complete lack of a charismatic Republican who could unite the moderate Republicans and the social conservatives to a great enough degree to beat an incumbent.

... whose charisma is falling aside on an almost daily basis. Unless the Dems get it together and start dealing with the issues of the war, unemployment, trade, healthcare, finance, and everything else sitting there in a great big lump, the GOP will be in a solid position to run the same kind of scare campaign they used -- very successfully -- this past November. When Romney's polling numbers are starting to look better than Obama's, the Dems have to know they're in trouble.

Any more questions?

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/20/10 at 11:00am

What good is same sex marriage if you don't have money to afford a wedding?

That comment makes me physically ill.