Crunch Time: The Mittiest of Victories

A Romney Victory: ROMNEY-273 vs. OBAMA-265 (270 electoral votes needed)

Mitt's conquest of the Presidency may look like this. As a reminder, the red color indicates that a state will cast its electoral votes for Romney; blue states indicate votes for Obama.

The Mormon Belt may be what narrowly pushes Colorado into the Romney tally. With the exception of its neighbor to the south, everything surrounding it will go red. While Nevada has a large LDS population as well, the Vegas metro area contains 70% of the state's population. Obama won Las Vegas with over 18% of the vote in 2008.

The Midwest will be a haven for Romney in this winning scenario. Recent polls have showed him ahead in Iowa. Neighboring Wisconsin is difficult to predict, although the choice of Paul Ryan for VP will score him some extra points in this usually-Democratic state. Romney looks poised for a fairly easy victory in Indiana, a state that the President barely won in '08.

The South's frustration with the President makes the climate good for a reenactment of 2004, when every single Southern state went Republican. Romney's biggest potential loss here? Virginia, which has the GOP nominee down in the polls. North Carolina, which just barely made it into the Obama tally in '08, will all but certainly go to Romney this year.

Florida is not part of the South. :) The Sunshine State has a big influx of Tea Partiers and seniors who have been made scared to death of 'Obamacare' and this plays well for Romney. Look for Florida to go Republican this time around. The President only carried it by less than 3% last time.

*Disagreements with this analysis? Please comment. I'd love to hear your thoughts--especially if you live in a state where you think that a different outcome will take place.*

Crunch Time: Barack My World--Again

 

An Obama Victory: OBAMA-297 vs. ROMNEY-241  (270 Electoral Votes Needed)

So, this is my prediction of the President's victory map. For those of you who aren't politically interested, a) why are you reading this? and b) the red color indicates a state which will cast its electoral votes for Romney. Blue indicates votes for Obama.

The Left Coast remains in the Obama camp, even if progressives weren't so sure for a time that the President was progressive enough.

Blue Western States include Colorado and New Mexico. Colorado's larger-than-average Mormon population is likely no match for its larger progressive community, including Denver and Boulder. Obama carried New Mexico by 15% in '08. I look for him to carry it by half as much this time around.

Great Lakes are mostly smooth sailing for the President in a winning scenario. An Obama victory in Michigan would be unsurprising. The GOP will probably stay home, as they didn't seem to be too crazy about Romney in his native state's primary. Wisconsin poses the biggest threat for Obama, with the overall state support of its controversial Republican governor and the fact that it's home to VP-nominee Paul Ryan. Watch the Badger State.

The Midwest includes a very narrow victory for the President in Ohio and a respectable but smaller-than-last-time win in his home state of Illinois. I think that the President stands a strong chance of losing Iowa. We'll see.

North Atlantic States will all go for the President. New Hampshire has been mentioned as a toss-up, as Romney has a home there and it is probably the most conservative of the New England States. Still, the President won it by nearly 10% in '08. His victory margin there this time will likely be closer to 3%.

 

 

*Disagreements with this analysis? Please comment. I'd love to hear your thoughts--especially if you live in a state where you think that a different outcome will take place.*

Crunch Time: An Introduction

With ten weeks until the U.S. presidential election, I think it's time for me to do what 'eventual nominee' Mitt Romney said regarding Senator Reid's claim that he hadn't paid income taxes for several years: "put up or shut up."

As my election analysis accuracy rate is just below a dismal 60%, I have limited credibility when it comes to predicting results. With very little to lose other than my dignity (who needs that, anyway?), I predicted that President Obama would be given his pink slip on November 6th. This prediction was made in September of last year, not out of a desire to see Obama defeated, but instead from my own need to avoid heartbreak when it actually happens.

(When Bush vs. Gore is your very first presidential election, you immediately learn to dismiss optimism in politics.)

Much has changed in the political landscape since September. The Republican scare tactics surrounding 'Obamacare' have run their course: Americans are anticipating the benefits from the program. Most everyone agrees that the economy is slowly (the term 'snail's pace' comes to mind) making progress. While the country isn't ready to give Obama credit for turning things around, most continue to recognize that he inherited the mess, a fact that Republicans just absolutely hate. The question: are these factors enough to forecast that the President will resume his job duties? The answer: no. But the odds are in his favor. Still, I am not changing my prediction. To do so and wind up with an Obama defeat may cause me significant heart damage, and I already have enough genetic reasons to be worried about that.

A lot could happen in the next two months, folks. There have been no debates yet, the RNC continues to rake up large amounts of dough and there's plenty of time for an "October surprise" from either side. So, instead of changing my overall forecast, I'll predict how the map will look either way on November 6th.

Presenting, for your interest and amusement, the next two blogs:

Crunch Time: Barack My World--Again
Crunch Time: The Mittiest of Victories

On a not-so-facetious note...

Earlier today, I made a facetious post on my Facebook page regarding Chick-fil-A's abhorrent policy--of promoting illiteracy and bad spelling. I was trying to lighten the public mood, as so many people seem to be up in arms about the recent controversy surrounding Chick-fil-A's support of anti-LGBT organizations.

Being a Gay guy, I guess I should be rallying hardcore against this company with its delicious waffle fries and a lemonade sweet enough to make one slap his own mother. Do I give Chick-fil-A my business? No. And I haven't for about fifteen months. That's my personal choice. Regardless, a part of me defends Chick-fil-A in this battle. And it is based on the same principle that causes me to defend Fred Phelps and his Wesboro Baptist Cult--err--Church:

Their freedom of speech.

Being a former "card-carrying member" of the American Civil Liberties Union (only 'former' because I got tired of being hounded by them for more money), I completely agree with their stance on this issue: cities like Chicago and Boston are wrong in their attempt to single out a company and, due to their belief system, attempt to deny them permission to operate their business where they choose.

While thousands of LGBT folks and myself appreciate that mayors and other civic leaders are speaking out on our behalf, I believe that this is an assault on free enterprise. These reactionary declarations against this one particular business amounts to skating on very thin Constitutional ice.

Chick-fil-A is not a public company, folks. It's not on the Stock Market Exchange, which means that it is free to do what a few select officers and shareholders want it to do. If the public doesn't like it, they don't have to patronize it. The Cathys have never made any attempt to mask Chick-fil-A as a business with opportunistic principles: if a fast-food business closes in observance of the Sabbath, I think that's a pretty good indicator that it is a Christian-owned and managed business. Truett and Dan Cathy make no apology for this--and frankly, I give them integrity points for sticking to their guns.

That doesn't mean that I agree with them. It is financially idiotic for a business to throw away the opportunity to earn more profit on any given day. It is also an absolutely moronic business decision for the head of a company to say anything other than "No comment" when asked about the company's stances on controversial issues. While Chick-fil-A is seeing its supporters out in full, bad publicity IS bad publicity. (Notice that you haven't heard a peep out of Wal-Mart on this issue.) If Chick-fil-A stuck to making waffle fries and sandwiches without rendering judgments on societal issues, they wouldn't be so knee-deep in chicken shit.

As American consumers, we have choices--in most cases, plenty of them. I don't begrudge anyone for eating at Chick-fil-A: it's their choice. The consumer has the right to be informed, though, and if a company or organization chooses to air its belief system, the public has the right to respond by continuing to frequent their place of business or go elsewhere. Wesboro Baptist Church probably isn't the best place for me to visit for my wedding needs: I know where I'm not wanted. Still, I'm not going to waltz in there and demand that Fred Phelps perform my ceremony. I would be infringing upon both him and his "church's" freedoms of speech and religion--and I would be wrong to do so.

Chick-fil-A and other businesses like it are ultimately going to be on the wrong side of history regarding same-sex marriage. Chick-fil-A does not support LGBT Equality, but the United States does not regulate the microphones of the businesses within its borders.

Discrimination is (and should be) un-American. ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act) should definitely be passed in order to prevent firing based on sexual orientation. But limiting a business' participation in capitalism by telling it where it cannot operate and basing that decision solely on its controversial views?

That's un-American, too.