2012 Presidential election results

[Icarus27k]

In Electoral College votes, that is...

Hawaii-Obama 4
Alaksa-Republican 3
Washington-Obama 12
Oregon-Obama 7
California-Obama 55
Idaho-Republican 4
Nevada-Tossup 6
Arizona-Republican 11
Montana-Republican 3
Wyoming-Republican 3
Utah-Republican 6
Colorado-Obama 9
New Mexico-Obama 5
North Dakota-Republican 3
South Dakota-Republican 3
Nebraska-Republican 4, Obama 1*
Kansas-Republican 6
Oklahoma-Republican 7
Texas-Republican 38
Minnesota-Obama 10
Wisconsin-Obama 10
Iowa-Obama 6
Illinois-Obama 20
Missouri-Republican 10
Arkansas-Republican 6
Louisiana-Republican 8
Michigan-Obama 16
Indiana-Tossup 11
Ohio-Tossup 18
Kentucky-Republican 8
Tennessee-Republican 11
Mississippi-Republican 6
Alabama-Republican 9
Georgia-Republican 16
Florida-Tossup 29
West Virginia-Republican 5
South Carolina-Republican 9
North Carolina-Tossup 15
Virginia-Tossup 13
D.C.-Obama 3
Maryland-Obama 10
Delaware-Obama 3
Pennsylvania-Tossup 20
New Jersey-Obama 14
New York-Obama 29
Connecticut-Obama 7
Rhode Island-Obama 4
Massachusetts-Obama 11
Vermont-Obama 3
New Hampshire-Tossup 4
Maine-Obama 4

*Nebraska has a unique election law. Instead of a "winner take all" rule, they divide their electors up by the winner of Congressional districts plus two for the winner of the statewide election. It sounds confusing, but it's not really. It always works out with the Democrat winning one elector and the Republican winning the rest.



Of course, a candidate needs 270 electors to win the election. Obama has 243, a generic Republican has 179, and there are 116 tossups.

 

[Omicron]

"Nebraska has a unique election law. Instead of a "winner take all" rule, they divide their electors up by the winner of Congressional districts plus two for the winner of the statewide election."

Let's go to the Queen and ask for that.

Only outrageously infuriated retro-neanderthal MBAs dreaming about the days when they could march into an igloo community and be offered a woman would object.

Ancient Inuit used to fight to the death over any insult. That form of temperamentalism is why they got kicked out of Asia, and is how they ended up with so many wives.

 

[Walter]

Link?

 

[JLM]

In Electoral College votes, that is...

Hawaii-Obama 4
Alaksa-Republican 3
Washington-Obama 12
Oregon-Obama 7
California-Obama 55
Idaho-Republican 4
Nevada-Tossup 6
Arizona-Republican 11
Montana-Republican 3
Wyoming-Republican 3
Utah-Republican 6
Colorado-Obama 9
New Mexico-Obama 5
North Dakota-Republican 3
South Dakota-Republican 3
Nebraska-Republican 4, Obama 1*
Kansas-Republican 6
Oklahoma-Republican 7
Texas-Republican 38
Minnesota-Obama 10
Wisconsin-Obama 10
Iowa-Obama 6
Illinois-Obama 20
Missouri-Republican 10
Arkansas-Republican 6
Louisiana-Republican 8
Michigan-Obama 16
Indiana-Tossup 11
Ohio-Tossup 18
Kentucky-Republican 8
Tennessee-Republican 11
Mississippi-Republican 6
Alabama-Republican 9
Georgia-Republican 16
Florida-Tossup 29
West Virginia-Republican 5
South Carolina-Republican 9
North Carolina-Tossup 15
Virginia-Tossup 13
D.C.-Obama 3
Maryland-Obama 10
Delaware-Obama 3
Pennsylvania-Tossup 20
New Jersey-Obama 14
New York-Obama 29
Connecticut-Obama 7
Rhode Island-Obama 4
Massachusetts-Obama 11
Vermont-Obama 3
New Hampshire-Tossup 4
Maine-Obama 4

*Nebraska has a unique election law. Instead of a "winner take all" rule, they divide their electors up by the winner of Congressional districts plus two for the winner of the statewide election. It sounds confusing, but it's not really. It always works out with the Democrat winning one elector and the Republican winning the rest.



Of course, a candidate needs 270 electors to win the election. Obama has 243, a generic Republican has 179, and there are 116 tossups.

So really at this point it's just a crock of bullsh*t and doesn't really inform anyone of anything. Waste of a thread.

 

[Icarus27k]

Link?

A link to the list of electors? I can show you that.

But perhaps I should explain most states people already know how they are going to vote. California is a Democratic state and is going to vote for Obama, Texas is a Republican state and is going to vote for the Republican. Other states are more up in the air, but can be called. Take, for example, Colorado ...

Statewide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


...which has polls of Obama defeating all named Republicans.

So really at this point it's just a crock of bullsh*t and doesn't really inform anyone of anything. Waste of a thread.

Nope, it says that Obama has 243 Electoral College votes, the Republican has 179, and 116 are tossups.

It's easier to get to 270 when you have 243 than when you have 179, so ...

 

[mentalfloss]

Unless the republicans wake up and get someone worthwhile on stage (and who's actually well known - unlike Ron Paul), there should be no surprise that Obama will get a second term.

 

[JLM]

Nope, it says that Obama has 243 Electoral College votes, the Republican has 179, and 116 are tossups.

It's easier to get to 270 when you have 243 than when you have 179, so ...

So the election is almost 13 months away and much can happen to change the final result.

 

[Icarus27k]

So the election is almost 13 months away and much can happen to change the final result.

Perhaps, but not necessarily. My experience is that statewide polling a year before the election is surprisingly stable. I was able to predict, in 2007, that the 2008 Democratic candidate (whether that was Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton) was going to beat the eventual Republican nominee is states such as Iowa and Virginia (historical Republican states).

 

[JLM]

Perhaps, but not necessarily. My experience is that statewide polling a year before the election is surprisingly stable. I was able to predict, in 2007, that the 2008 Democratic candidate (whether that was Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton) was going to beat the eventual Republican nominee is states such as Iowa and Virginia (historical Republican states).

It will be interesting, we'll just have to wait and see. :smile:

 

[Icarus27k]

When you think about it, the last sitting U.S. President to lose reelection was President George H.W. Bush in 1992, and he probably only lost the race because there was a strong third party candidate in the race that took some of his support away. Sitting Presidents have a pretty positive track record. I don't think I would bet against them.

 

[The Old Medic]

Unless something changes very dramatically, the 2012 election will be a bloodbath for the Democrats. They will lose complete control of the Senate (likely close to a veto-proof majority for the Republicans), get stronger hold of the House, and take the Presidency.

This is likely to be similar to what Reagan did to Carter.

Historical voting patterns will not matter much at all.

Meaning that the Republicans will sweep the election, and the Democrats will be left out in the cold.

And, since Harry Reid chose to use the "nuclear option", they Democrats won't even be able to fillibuster. The Republicans will essentially totally freeze the Democrats out of ANY voice in the government.

 

[JLM]

Unless something changes very dramatically, the 2012 election will be a bloodbath for the Democrats. They will lose complete control of the Senate (likely close to a veto-proof majority for the Republicans), get stronger hold of the House, and take the Presidency.

This is likely to be similar to what Reagan did to Carter.

Historical voting patterns will not matter much at all.

Meaning that the Republicans will sweep the election, and the Democrats will be left out in the cold.

And, since Harry Reid chose to use the "nuclear option", they Democrats won't even be able to fillibuster. The Republicans will essentially totally freeze the Democrats out of ANY voice in the government.

What was it old Yogi said? :lol:

 

[TenPenny]

"Nebraska has a unique election law. Instead of a "winner take all" rule, they divide their electors up by the winner of Congressional districts plus two for the winner of the statewide election."

Let's go to the Queen and ask for that.

that's really just a version of first past the post, where the winner gets all the college votes. Not a very good system to move to, is it.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

I think New Hampshire is also not strictly winner take all. I think 3 seats go to the winner and there is the 4th goes to the other party if they get N%. I am 99% sure its NH but may be one of the other northeastern states.

ETA: I remember hearing this on CNN but can't find any supporting documentation via Google. Perhaps the CNN reporter was mis-informed.

 

[JLM]

For the amount of control the President has and regarding the financial mess the U.S. is in who becomes the next president is pretty well a moot point, until all the fat cat crooks are in jail and the population in general changes their priorities from "gotta have it now" to "we'll limit our spending to the money in our pockets" :lol:

 

[Icarus27k]

Historical voting patterns will not matter much at all.

Heard it all before. A sitting President is going to get ousted and the fundamental dynamics of voting patterns is going to be changed.

I think New Hampshire is also not strictly winner take all. I think 3 seats go to the winner and there is the 4th goes to the other party if they get N%. I am 99% sure its NH but may be one of the other northeastern states.

ETA: I remember hearing this on CNN but can't find any supporting documentation via Google. Perhaps the CNN reporter was mis-informed.

It's not New Hampshire. It's Maine, which has the same rule as Nebraska. I didn't mention it because, even with that rule, the Democratic candidate always wins all of Maine's electors.