Which are the key states for Barack Obama’s reelection? In 2004, the election came down to a few states, such as Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida. In 2008, the winner of the 44th built the victory and its 365 votes in the Electoral College on a large number of states, which benefited its well-oiled organization and its financial higher-ups.
Which will be the key for Obama in 2012?
A lot of things depend on the state of the economy and on the president’s Republican adversaries. But it is interesting to compare his 2008 score to that of John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic candidate, because it gives an idea of the strengths and weaknesses of the 44th.
In 44 of the 50 states, Obama did markedly better than Kerry; in 28 of those 44, he was ahead by over five points.
Of the six states in which Kerry’s score was higher than Obama’s, five were in the Deep South or the Southwest.
Given the state of public opinion in 2011, it will be difficult for Barack Obama to get the same scores as he did in 2008, especially in a few particular states. In North Carolina, for example, Obama brought up the Democratic candidate’s score by nine points — a considerable percentage — and yet he did not bring in more than 14,000 votes in the presidential election. In Indiana, another example, a gain of 11 points over Kerry’s only meant 50 percent of the votes.
For Obama to return to the White House in 2012, it will be necessary that he achieve significant scores in states like Virginia, Colorado and Nevada. Obama has beaten Kerry’s score by eight or nine points in those states. Comparing the number of votes for Kerry and those for Obama, the president is hanging around 50 percent of the popular vote. It’s in these states, in which Obama won 50 percent of the votes, where the election will be decided. If he brings in enough votes here, he is certain to remain in the White House for another four years.
By 2012, The National Popular Vote bill could guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn’t be about winning states. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives already agree that only 14 states and their voters will matter under the current winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states. Candidates will not care about 72% of the voters- voters-in 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. 2012 campaigning would be even more obscenely exclusive than 2008 and 2004. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: CO– 68%, FL – 78%, IA –75%, MI– 73%, MO– 70%, NH– 69%, NV– 72%, NM– 76%, NC– 74%, OH– 70%, PA — 78%, VA — 74%, and WI — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE –75%, ID – 77%, ME — 77%, MT – 72%, NE — 74%, NH –69%, NV — 72%, NM — 76%, OK – 81%, RI — 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT — 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and border states: AR –80%, KY — 80%, MS –77%, MO — 70%, NC — 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, VA — 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: CA — 70%, CT — 74% , MA — 73%, MN – 75%, NY — 79%, OR – 76%, and WA — 77%.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA ,RI, VT, and WA . The bill has been enacted by DC, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, and WA. These 7 states possess 74 electoral votes — 27% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
http://www.NationalPopularVote.com