Media Criticism, Political Commentary

The Popular Vote

26 Comments

Barring some major shift, Romney will win it.

Geraghty’s analysis is buttressed by the latest Gallup results of voter composition, misleadingly titled “2012 U.S. Electorate Looks Like 2008.” They’re referring to race, age and gender, but if you look at the party composition, it actually looks more like 2010. That is, another wave election against the Democrats. Combining that with other poll results means Romney plus six or seven in the popular vote (that is, basically a reversal of 2008). It also means that even blue states like Connecticut or New Jersey could be in play. In addition, it probably means long coat tails, with a solid Republican majority in the Senate.

26 thoughts on “The Popular Vote”

  1. If that happens, then we will see that the Republicans are really made of. There will not be any excuses if they cannot reform entitlements with that sort of mandate.

    1. I think it’s more likely you’ll find out what Scott Brown, John McCain, and a few other famous names are made of.

  3. Brock,

    Very true. The thing to remember is that Willard is a self-professed moderate. I don’t have any illusions that he’s a Raging Right Winger.

    But he’ll be universes better than the Fargin’ Ice-a-hole we have now

  4. I’m hoping the ground game thugs are mostly in the states Obama would win anyway, but know they do cross state lines.

    I think Romney/Ryan might be a very positive surprise. Romney has never had a legislature that would really support him. Plus he will owe the tea party big time.

    1. I’ve been volunteering at my local Obama office in NH, doing data entry mostly, alongside a collection of retirees and teenagers. Quite a scary bunch of thugs.

  5. Even if Romney wins and the Republicans win control of the Senate and keep control of the House, it doesn’t mean they’ll get to do anything they want. Under Senate rules, the minority party can tie things up with a filibuster threat*. You need 60 voters to overcome a filibuster and it seems unlikely a Republican victory would be that large. That means they’ll have to write legislation bipartisan enough to get at least a few Democrats to vote for it.

    *Perhaps some one can tell me, when was the last actual filibuster in the Senate? If they threaten one, make them do it. See how long that lasts.

    1. The Republicans don’t need sixty votes to get past a filibuster. There are many vulnerable Democrats running in 2014 who came in in the wave of 2008. If they want to hang on, they’ll likely vote with the Republicans in many cases, or at least allow a vote.

      1. They’ll still need 60 votes to break a filibuster, just not all of them have to be Republicans. If they can peal off a few Democrat votes or if some of them switch parties, they’ll be able to overcome a filibuster.

          1. Note that the Dem Senate caucus is becoming more liberal. They’re losing people like Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman, and gaining (probably) Elizabeth Warren and Tammy Baldwin. The GOP may be able to peel off some votes to break filibusters, but they’ll have better luck packaging everything they want into one big bill that they can pass using reconciliation.

            If, that is, they win the Senate.

          3. Jim writes:

            “Note that the Dem Senate caucus is becoming more liberal. They’re losing people like Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman, and gaining (probably) Elizabeth Warren and Tammy Baldwin.”

            Probably? I think you are overstating Lizzie Warren’s chances…..

    2. Maybe it means Romney will have to prove he can work across the isle?

      The only reason I want Republicans to control everything is to get rid of Obamacare. I remember the last time Republicans controlled everything and how they didn’t do so great fiscally. Maybe Democrats will keep up some gridlock or maybe the TP will keep the Republicans from spending like Bush and Obama.

  6. I suspect there are a lot of Democrat Senators who would prefer voting more Conservatively, on general principles, but given the Dem owned white house and Senate, they feel constrained to stick with the party.

    1. Campaign financing is a big stick as well–if they break with the Democrats over issues the DNC considers important they might find themselves short of cash the next primary cycle.

      1. Good point.

        I wonder, though, if Akins represents a break of the grip the machine has on party members?

Comments are closed.