Panicky supporters of President Obama got another reason to reach for the smelling salts yesterday with the release of a new survey of Michigan voters by the Democrat polling firm of Foster McCollum White and Associates/Baydoun Consulting. The poll showed the president falling into a virtual dead heat with Mitt Romney with a 47-46 percentage point lead. While as recently as last month, Obama was shown as having a 14-point lead, the Foster/Baydoun poll more or less confirms the findings of a Detroit Free Press poll that gave Romney a one-point lead.
Democrats have long counted on Michigan as a solid blue state that would inevitably fall into the president’s column in November. But as it must now be classified as a toss-up where native son Mitt Romney has the momentum, the question must be asked whether the president can win without it. The answer is a qualified yes. It is easy to compile a map that would give either one a victory without its 16 electoral votes. Nevertheless, it is much harder to imagine Obama getting to the magic total of 270 electoral votes than Romney without Michigan in his pocket. Barack Obama can win without Michigan, but it is hard to imagine him losing it without also going down in neighboring Ohio and Wisconsin. That is a scenario that means Democratic defeat.
President Obama won in 2008 not just by winning blue states but by stealing a number of red ones such as Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia. The odds of him repeating that feat are not very good at the moment. Polls have shown Indiana probably to be a lost cause for the Democrats and North Carolina slipping away, too. But the recent dismal economic news is putting states like Michigan and Wisconsin into play as well. While Obama can lose the states that turned a narrow victory into a cakewalk four years ago, the political facts of life for Democrats is that they cannot lose the rust belt and hope to prevail.
What makes this especially problematic is that the Obama camp assumed Romney’s opposition to the General Motors bailout along with the huge Democratic registration advantage in the state would make it impossible for them to lose Michigan. Though they knew all along that Ohio would be a coin flip and that the resurgence of the GOP in Wisconsin under Scott Walker would make it close, there was no reason to doubt that working-class Michigan would reject the wealthy Romney.
Along with a raft of other state polls, the Michigan numbers show that Democrats clearly underestimated Romney’s ability to recover from the beating he took in the GOP primaries and that the early attacks on him from the Obama campaign as a radical right-winger haven’t worked. But this poor showing in a state he shouldn’t have to fight so hard for tells us a lot more about President Obama’s shortcomings.
Jonathan is a great critic of policy and rhetoric. It is really hard to get past him weak and dishonest arguments. Offering punditry on the national election is a different story. "…it is much harder to imagine Romney getting to the magic total of 270 electoral votes than Obama without Michigan in his pocket." Really? Go the Real Clear Politics electoral map and add the following states to Romney's current lean or likely total of 170: VA, NC, FL, OH, MO, AZ, and IA. That is 271 total votes, and that does not include WI, MI, CO, NV, or NH. I cannot see how Obama wins the election and loses MI. While it is mathematically possible, it is not a real world outcome. Jonathan, before you post on electoral politics again, let me have a read of it first so I can help you strengthen your assertions. This one was weak, man.
I think this was a typo on Tobin's part. He goes on to say "…Barack Obama can win without Michigan, but it is hard to imagine him losing it without also going down in neighboring Ohio and Wisconsin. That is a scenario that means Democratic defeat." n nSo when Tobin said "…Nevertheless, it is much harder to imagine Romney getting to the magic total of 270 electoral votes than Obama without Michigan in his pocket", I think this was simply an error in typing–he meant to say "it is harder to imagine *Obama* getting to 270". n nKarl Rove outlined a "3-2-1" route to 270, and in it, Michigan is just one of a great many possible "1"s. (The "three"–retake traditionally GOP NC, IN, VA; the "two"–take swing states FL and OH; the "one": pick off any one of a great many other plausible states.) It's easy to imagine Romney taking those five, and also, say, Iowa or New Hampshire, without Michigan–it's hard to imagine Obama losing Michigan and holding enough other states to win. Which is what Tobin says, other than in that one sentence.
The problem for the so-called "president" is not whether is currently ahead or behind Romney by one point in this state or that, it is that he is under 50%, in fact under 48% in all but the most rabidly "blue" states in the US. Considering what an incredibly partisan and deeply polarizing president Obama is (with exception of three states with recent volatility and so likely with polls that are still "shaking themselves out", there aren't any states where Obama is between 48% and 54% – ie: a state is either very pro-Obama or against him); everyone who would consider supporting him has already declared that support and Obama is not likely to receive support from anyone undecided at this point. nTake a look at all the states where he is under 48% in RCP average (331 electoral votes). Obama is likely to lose them all.
OBAMA: RE-ELECT ME OR ELSE !!! n n Herbert Hoover's 1928 Presidential campaign promised "a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage." n n Barack Hussein Obama is now twisting Hoover's slogan and promising, if re-elected, "a chick in every car and some pot in every garage"! n n For more on the one whose teachers gave him good marks(ists), Google or MSN "Obama a Black-Slavery Avenger?," "Michelle Obama's Allah-day," and "Islam Will Purify Jews and Christians." n
If he loses Michigan, I see no path to reelection. For one thing, if he loses Michigan, then he probably also lost Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa and Pennsylvania (and maybe Minnesota too). Even if Obama wins Virginia, Nevada, New Hampshire and Colorado, Romney would still be over 300 electoral votes. Giving Obama Pennsylvania, Iowa and Wisconsin would result in a 269-269 tie and a likely Romney victory when it goes to the House delegations. And again, I don't see how he carries those states while losing Michigan. If he loses the Wolverine State, he's done.