There is a year and two months left before the elections in the United States in November of 2012, but until then, Democrats and Republicans are in an electoral battle. The objective is to obtain 270 Electoral College votes, regardless of the popular vote.
The strategies are new and don’t follow what has been tradition, for several reasons: First, the demographic change that the United States has undergone is extraordinary, and therefore, states that in the past had a definitive voting tendency are no longer a guarantee; the influence of Latinos, Asians, African-Americans and Asians is evident. The second factor is the economic impact of the electoral decision — above all, in industrial states that were strongly affected by unemployment. This is the largest obstacle for Obama.
To win re-election, President Obama has redesigned his strategy. This is not 2008, when he won 365 Electoral College votes and obtained 54 percent of the popular vote. In 2012, the battle will be closer, and even though he will be campaigning in all states, it seems that he will face difficulty in industrial states, such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Nevertheless, Obama has cultivated a new class of voters, who are self-employed and have a reasonable level of support for the president, with influence in states like Colorado, Virginia and North Carolina. On the other hand, Obama counts on his support among Latinos, African-Americans and Asian-Americans, who hold considerable weight, given the uncertainty that Republicans generate, with the exception of Mitt Romney, with respect to immigration and Social Security.
This is Obama’s electorate: diverse, distinct and effective. The coming months will indicate how the electoral strategy will take these electoral votes to the polls and win the necessary 270 Electoral College votes.
President Donald Trump’s idea [is] that international relations should be governed by the law of the jungle and that no international norm can limit his power.
President Donald Trump has consistently demonstrated a preference for maintaining control over escalation rather than allowing events to dictate American strategy.
If the [U.S.-Saudi] nuclear deal hits a deadlock, Riyadh may pivot to alternative suppliers — a shift that would significantly erode American strategic leverage in the Middle East.
President Donald Trump’s idea [is] that international relations should be governed by the law of the jungle and that no international norm can limit his power.
If the [U.S.-Saudi] nuclear deal hits a deadlock, Riyadh may pivot to alternative suppliers — a shift that would significantly erode American strategic leverage in the Middle East.