Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Iowa is over 80% white and Obama is doing worse among whites now than any other candidate since Carter. I doubt Iowa will be much different. He will lose Iowa.
He wasn't doing that well with whites in 2008. Obama won a number of states because of young voters and high minority turn out.
The last time a "contingent election," as it's known, occurred was 1824.
After the unresolved presidential election of 1824, when none of the four candidates achieved an Electoral College majority, the House met the following January to decide the outcome.
After a good bit of politicking from all the candidates, the House awarded the presidency to John Quincy Adams, even though Andrew Jackson had won the most electoral votes.
It made sense that Jackson lost. A majority of people in congress (and probably a majority of citizens) were for most of these: a national bank, tariffs and internal improvements - roads, bridges, canals etc. Jackson was against those things. Therefore a coalition against Jackson seemed inevitable and his stardom from the Battle of New Orleans wouldn't outshine it.
Again, it is the new Congress that picks the President and Vice President. So, if this scenario were to occur (and I think the chances of that are <1%) then it will be the House and Senate delegation elected in the 2012 election that will be conducting the vote.
Iowa is certainly a battle ground state that could go either way. RCP currently has Obama +1 with 4 polls averaged. a +1 Romney, tie, +1 Obama and a +5 Obama...seems like it could go either way.
Again, it is the new Congress that picks the President and Vice President. So, if this scenario were to occur (and I think the chances of that are <1%) then it will be the House and Senate delegation elected in the 2012 election that will be conducting the vote.
True, but the Republicans currently enjoy just over a 2 to 1 advantage in the house (in terms of the 1 state gets 1 vote tie breaker)...the odds of that drastically changing to favor the Democrats is pretty slim.
He wasn't doing that well with whites in 2008. Obama won a number of states because of young voters and high minority turn out.
And that turnout will fade this election. I am nearly certain of that. If a historic turnout helped propel Obama to his win in 2008, then he will have to win with a less enthusiastic turnout. I am not saying that he cannot do it (in fact, if I had to put money on it right now, I would probably bet Obama would win), but it will be much tougher for him. He's already down 8 EVs from the last election due to the 2010 census, and he has lost NC and IN (26 EVs). Hence, he starts the 'game' with 34 fewer EVs already.
Then again, Obama would have to make more history. No President has ever been elected to a second term with a popular vote total less than what he won in his first election.
FL, NC, VA and 22 more electoral votes from OH (18), NH (4), IA (6), CO (9) and NV (6).
The raw probability of that is low single digits.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
