Quels sont les Etats clés pour la réélection de Barack Obama ? En 2004, l’élection s’était jouée sur quelques Etats, comme la Pennsylvanie, l’Ohio et la Floride. En 2008, 44th avait construit sa victoire et ses 365 voix dans le Collège Electoral sur un grand nombre d’Etats, ce qui avantageait son organisation parfaitement huilée et ses moyens financiers supérieurs.
Quelle sera la clé d’Obama 2012 ?
Beaucoup de choses dépendront de l’état de l’économie et des adversaires Républicains du président. Mais il est intéressant de comparer son score de 2008 avec celui de John Kerry, le candidat Démocrate de 2004, parce qu’il donne une idée des forces et des faiblesses de 44th. Dans 44 des 50 Etats, Obama a fait nettement mieux que Kerry et dans 28 de ces 44 Etats, son avance est de plus de 5 points.
Parmi les six Etats dans lesquels le score de John Kerry était supérieur à celui d’Obama, cinq sont dans le Deep South ou dans les Etats du Sud Ouest.
Vu l’état de l’opinion publique en 2011, il sera difficile à Barack Obama de rééditer les scores qu’il a réalisés en 2008. Surtout que dans certains Etats, comme la Caroline du Nord, par exemple, Obama a amélioré le score du candidat Démocrate de 9 points _ un pourcentage considérable _ et pourtant il ne l’emporte que de 14.000 voix lors de l’élection présidentielle. Ou dans l’Indiana, un gain de 11 points sur le score de Kerry, ne lui donne que 50% des voix.
Pour qu’Obama retourne à la Maison Blanche en 2012, il faudra qu’il réalise des score importants dans des Etats comme la Virginie, le Colorado et le Nevada. Dans ces Etats, Obama a amélioré le pourcentage de Kerry de huit ou neuf points. En faisant un ratio entre le nombre de voix de Kerry et celui d’Obama, le président tourne autour de 50% des voix. C’est dans ces Etats où Obama fait 50% des voix que l’élection va se jouer. S’il en remporte un nombre suffisant,il sera assuré de rester à la Maison Blanche pour quatre années supplémentaires.
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