Karl Rove Throws a Wet Towel on The Electoral Map

Some of us think the battle for the White House will reach new and unfamiliar states.  But not Karl Rove. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, he jeers:

The battlegrounds will look familiar. It will be the industrial heartland from Pennsylvania to Wisconsin, minus Indiana (Republican) and Illinois (Democrat); the western edge of the Midwest from Minnesota south to Missouri; Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada in the Rocky Mountains; Florida; and New Hampshire.

Mr. Obama will argue he puts Virginia and North Carolina into play (doubtful), and may make an attempt at winning one or two of Nebraska’s electoral votes (it awards its electoral votes by congressional district). Mr. McCain will say he can put New Jersey and Delaware and part of Maine (it splits its vote like Nebraska) in play. But it’s doubtful he’ll win in Oregon or Washington State, although he believes he can.

And this is coming from the guy who spent $20 million in California against Al Gore.

Advertisements

5 responses to “Karl Rove Throws a Wet Towel on The Electoral Map

  1. Despite the fact that we are in the silly season when presidential candidates talk about running 50-state campaigns, and R’s talk about winning California, and D’s talk about winning North Carolina, Rove is absolutely right in saying that things will be pretty much like 2004. Most states will be what David Broder recently called “unimportant” “throwaway” states.

    The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state. Because of this rule, candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. Two-thirds of the visits and money are focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money goes to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people are merely spectators to the presidential election.

    Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.

    The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, 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 would make every vote politically relevant in a presidential election. It would make every vote.

    The National Popular Vote bill has been approved by 17 legislative chambers (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, and Vermont). It has been enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring this legislation into effect.

    See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

  2. Rove is right. It will come down to the same states as it has the last two cycles.

  3. Rove makes good points, but I think Obama will be competitive in Virginia and North Carolina based on polling. HRC is actually somewhat competitive in Kentucky and West Virginia, btw. I think there are a few states that will become more competitive as we move on, though not a whole lot. In Indiana, a poll showed Obama tied 46-46 with McCain and Hillary trailing McCain 44-49. Not a blowout, but it is still relatively competitive.

  4. Pearl Mitchell

    Who cares what a crooked jerk like Rove thinks. He had better worry about Congress and not Obama.

  5. Pearl: Rove may be a jerk but he has a keen analytical mind when it comes to politcs. So sad to see yet another liberal mind clouded by political prejudice. (I’m a lib, too, by the way)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s