Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

TX: 2010 Gov (Rasmussen 4/14)

Topics: Poll , Texas

Rasmussen
4/14/10; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen Release)

Texas

2010 Governor: General Election
48% Perry, 44% White

Favorable / Unfavorable
Rick Perry: 59 / 37
Bill White: 54 / 36

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pre. Obama: 42 / 58
Gov. Perry: 59 / 40

 

Comments
IdahoMulato:

This race will go to the wire. I'm happy I now live in Houston and would be following this race until everything is settled.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

The best thing about having Perry on the ticket is that some of his anti-immigration stands, and hint to secede from the Union, and simply being a very polarizing figure may rally some high turnout for Democratic leaning voters. Even if Perry wins, I predict it won't be a lot and Democrats will be more likely to hang on to their house seats other than perhaps Congressman Edwards who is in a highly Republican district.

____________________

jmartin4s:

What I find hard to believe is Perry's bogus job approval rating of 59%. If Perry was really that popular than he wouldn't be ONLY 4 POINTS ahead of his challenger. If the DGA just ignores all other states and spend millions in Texas (which I think they should do), Texas will go blue. Many conservatives down there hate Rick Perry with a passion. If he was really as popular as Ras says he is there is no way in hell KBH would have primaried him in the first place.

____________________

jmartin4s:

If Bill White gets 90%+ of Dems, a plurality among indies, and 25%to 35% of the people who voted for KBH in the primary he should win. Teabagging your opponent can only save a struggling governor in the primary not the general.

____________________

Stillow:

You Dems crack me up. White has no chance. I know it makes you guys feel all fuzzy inside to think he does, but he will get crushed.

I love the if this happens and if that happens then Whit can pull ofr a sqeuaker stuff.....its time to wake up and look around guys. Perry will eat White for dinner....Perry will end up with a normal 55 or so.

____________________

Westwoodnc Westwoodnc:

Word Stillow. Perry is popular and STILL winning. Move on Dems. This isn't your state.

____________________

jmartin4s:

If Perry is so popular and is such a shoo-in for re-election such as Stillow says, then why did he get re-elected with 39% of the vote in 2006. That means 61% of Texans did not want him as their governor.

"Running for a third full-term is rarely easy for any governor and Perry's 2006 reelection with 39% of the vote (in a multi-candidate race) was under-whelming. Former Houston Mayor Bill White (D) will have to run a perfect campaign to overcome Democrats' statewide troubles, but he starts the general election with an opportunity to do so."-Stu Rothenberg

Still think Rick Perry is a lock for re-election????

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

At 42/58, Obama's approval is better in Texas than a lot of red states, and this is Rasmussen.

All Bill White really has to do is get a 10 point higher margin out of Harris county than democrats normally do. They've already got the other cities except for Fort Worth.

The race is within the margin of error and the campaign hasn't even started yet.

It would be a moral victory for democrats and nothing more. The Texas governor really has no power.

____________________

Stillow:

aaron - What you fail to realize is O's 42 approval in TX is lower than his election result in TX....TX has a 46 percent barrier that a Dem running against a conservative cannot break. It will be that way for quite some time. Perry will be White probably soemthing like 54-44.

____________________

jmartin4s:

Who should we trust more Stillow or Stu Rothenberg??? I think I'll go with Stu Rothenberg. BTW, I'm still interested to know why Perry got only 39% of the vote if he is so popular and such a shoo-in for re-election.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"O's 42 approval in TX is lower than his election result in TX"

By 2 points, well within the margin of error. So according to Rasmussen, he hasn't lost much support here among those that supported him before. I think people underestimate the TX democratic base. Obama got 44% without even fielding a ground campaign.

This may be the one race in the country where democrats will be fired up. They hate Perry more than you hate Obama. The recent state board of education stuff really pissed them all off. They will come out to vote against him. If there had been a decent candidate against him in 2006 he probably would have lost then.

I agree, it's Perry's race to lose. White needs to run a perfect campaign and Perry needs to make a gaffe, but I don't think Perry will win by 11 points regardless.

Like I said, the Houston area is key, and that is White's base. If he gets a decent margin out of Harris county, watch out. Obama got 49% in Fort Bend county, the one just west & south of Houston. If white could do better there, it would also help, and also if the republican vote is a little less monolithic in Montgomery county, which contains the more affluent suburbs north of Houston. Modest shifts in just those 3 counties could potentially flip the state.

____________________

jmartin4s:

According to Stillow's favorite pollster.

"Texas Media Coverage Favors White Over Perry"

"79.5% of the media mentions for White were positive, and only 20.5% were negative.

For Perry, during the same time frame, the coverage was far more mixed: 45.6% of the media mentions were positive, and 54.4% were negative."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_governor_elections/texas/media_meter/texas_media_coverage_favors_white_over_perry

I just find that hilarious, not to mention
how dumb Perry's supporters are. They spell their messages on their own signs wrong. HOMESCHOLERS for Perry.

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/B/E/3/homescholers-for-perry.jpg

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

____________________

jamesia:

It will be interesting to see how the increasing Latino vote will play out here in TX. Texas is GOP territory for just a few more years at best. Now if Congressional Dems really do initiate immigration reform before November like Reid said, this race will be strongly affected.

In any other state, Perry would be gone (UT and maybe AZ excluded). Voting for Perry is strictly partisan and not at all related to his job as governor.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Its unbelievable how dumb Obama voters are too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8

HAAAAA!! This is obviously the typical Obama voter.

See JMartin, i could do the same thing you are doing- implying that one or a few dumb people imply that the whole group is the same?

By making that asinine allegation, you are no better off that the woman who couldn't spell.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Texas is GOP territory for just a few more years at best."

I give it 10-14 years, if demographics are indeed destiny. It will take a while for sheer numbers to make up for the considerably lower voter turnout among hispanics. All that goes out the window, though, if democrats start getting less than ~57% of the hispanic vote. They got 63% in 2008, although young latinos went by 67% and the average age of their population is much younger, so it bodes well.

Republicans won whites in TX over 65 by 78-20. The white youth voted republican about 10 points less than that, 69-30. Amazing that whites were voting almost 3-1 against Obama and he still managed 44%. Any closure in that margin would be disastrous for republicans.

The youth vote is inextricably tied to the minority vote. A lot of people fail to see that it's more demographics than ideological change behind the trend. Young whites are only marginally more liberal than their parents.

____________________

Westwoodnc Westwoodnc:

California will vote Republican before Texas votes for a Democrat for president.

____________________

Westwoodnc Westwoodnc:

jmartin4s:
Who should we trust more Stillow or Stu Rothenberg??? I think I'll go with Stu Rothenberg. BTW, I'm still interested to know why Perry got only 39% of the vote if he is so popular and such a shoo-in for re-election.

===

I'm interested to know why you think a man that won that election in a strongly Democrat year that saw the D's gain in the legislature and several big city offices, and is even MORE POPULAR NOW AND AHEAD IN THE POLLS will not win re-election.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"California will vote Republican before Texas votes for a Democrat for president."

Are you saying demographic change is irrelevant? It's basically what changed California's voting patterns. CA was a bastion of conservatism two decades ago. The democratic % has grown every cycle since 1992, from 46% then to 61% in 2008.

____________________

Stillow:

Obviously none of you know any latino's. being married to one i can assure you they are not as stupid as you lefties think they are. Out in west TX, around Lubbock for example, latino's are no freinds to the Democratic party. You lefties seem to forget Bush carried almost half of all latino's in 2004, I think he carried 44 percent. latino's are not sheep...and they are not stupid. they are stubbornly indepednent thinking.

Anyone who disagrees, come meet my wife.

Its much like the growing central valley latinop population in CA, these are conservative voters, not loony libs. You left wingers think you can take latino's for granted....ya gota another thing comin to ya.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

Stillow, all that means is that your wife is among the ~35% minority of hispanics that vote republican.

I am among the 26% minority of whites in Texas that voted for Obama. We're talking about trends here, not individuals.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Bush carried almost half of all latino's in 2004"

He carried 44%. So far, that has proven to be the exception, not the rule. Republicans have averaged 32.5% of the hispanic vote since 1972. Ross Perot pulled some of them in the 90s, almost exclusively from the ones who voted republican.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/national-exit-polls.html

____________________

Stillow:

Bush carried 44 percent, that is a watermark to use for future reference. In addition I think the racial games Dems play will continue to cost them white voters in the future. Using the watermark latino's are not lock-step supporters of the dem party.

2008 was a wave yearand the numbers were somewhat skewed across the board. 2012 will be different. Will the GOp carry a majoirty of latino's, no probably not. But when the dust settles from the 2008 election for good, latino support for conservatives will hover between 40-45 percent. Combined with a growing number of white voters going to lean GOP and away from Dems, it will make elections for Dems very difficult for the next 15-20 years.

With O upside down pretty solidly in approval in many key states, hisre-election will be very otugh. NV, CO, IN, FL....its har dto win re-election when your job approval in these states is in low 40's.

____________________

Westwoodnc Westwoodnc:

If you're a "democratic-leaning" constituency and still haven't brought around your state/locality to the Democrats, well, 2008 was your last chance in a generation. Population growth has stalled pretty much everywhere due to the depression. People like to bring up California as an example as the Latinos putting the nail in the GOP coffin. Ignoring the fact that the most salient change in the electorate occured with the white voters in the state. GOP whites fled the state, with the leftwing whites staying and the state continued to attract left-wing libtards. An LA Times poll done last year showed that the most conservative demographics were minorities, far more conservative than the whites (as anyone watching the Prop. 8 returns can attest). The demography across the country is still being sorted out. The GOP will continue to have a lock on at least 30% of Latinos, but just as long as it doesn't bleed white votes, it's in a solid position. Texas shouldn't be waiting for a blue tide, it really should've happened by at least 2006 just by demographics. The Latinos there are long-standing but aren't a safe vote for the Dems.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Population growth has stalled pretty much everywhere"

That's why the #1 baby name is Jose.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/15/mike-murphy/jose-no-1-baby-name-texas-social-security-administ/

A one or two year slow-down is not going to affect the overall trend significantly. It's been the #1 name since 1996, meaning the bulk of the shift when it comes to votes has yet to make an impact.

"GOP whites fled the state, with the leftwing whites staying and the state continued to attract left-wing libtards."

What evidence do you have to support this?

Latinos were about 10% of the CA population in 1970. Now they are 37%.

They voted for Obama 73-26, more or less the same margin they've always gotten. Republicans have had problems breaking 30% among hispanics in CA. They are lucky that hispanics turnout percentage is much lower than that of whites, or they'd get blown out even worse.

http://www.wcvi.org/latino_voter_research/polls/ca/1988/November/vote_pres_sen.html

In the previous 3 elections, 1996-2004, republicans won among whites, yet democrats got a higher % of the total vote each time.

http://www.latimesinteractive.com/pdfarchive/stat_sheets/la-timespoll389ss.pdf

OK, in 92 and 96, Perot mucked things up. So lets look at the previous two. In 2000, Bush had a 2 point ADVANTAGE over Gore among whites, and still lost.

http://www.latimesinteractive.com/pdfarchive/stat_sheets/la-timespoll449ss.pdf

In 2004, Bush INCREASED that advantage among whites to 5 points, yet his overall numbers in CA were worse than 2000.

http://www.calendarlive.com/media/acrobat/2008-02/35316015.pdf

So your contention that conservative whites disappeared in California is just wrong. They got increasingly outnumbered. They shifted about 5 points in favor of democrats in 2008 compared to 2004, putting the nail in the coffin in 2008, so I guess all the conservative whites left during those 4 years. Maybe Arnold pissed them off. If it were up to the whites, republicans would have won CA until 2008.

The respective party loyalties of racial groups have not changed significantly, their weight in the electorate has. Whites went from 79% in 1992 to 63% in 2008, hispanics went from 9% to 18%.

Again, you're lucky the hispanics don't turnout to vote in the same propotions as their population.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Population growth has stalled pretty much everywhere"

That's why the #1 baby name is Jose.

A one or two year slow-down is not going to affect the overall trend significantly. It's been the #1 name since 1996, meaning the bulk of the shift when it comes to votes has yet to make an impact.

"GOP whites fled the state, with the leftwing whites staying and the state continued to attract left-wing libtards."

What evidence do you have to support this?

Latinos were about 10% of the CA population in 1970. Now they are 37%.

They voted for Obama 73-26, more or less the same margin they've always gotten. Republicans have had problems breaking 30% among hispanics in CA. They are lucky that hispanics turnout percentage is much lower than that of whites, or they'd get blown out even worse.

In the previous 3 elections, 1996-2004, republicans won among whites, yet democrats got a higher % of the total vote each time.

OK, in 92 and 96, Perot mucked things up. So lets look at the previous two. In 2000, Bush had a 2 point ADVANTAGE over Gore among whites, and still lost.

In 2004, Bush INCREASED that advantage among whites to 5 points, yet his overall numbers in CA were worse than 2000.

So your contention that conservative whites disappeared in California is just wrong. They got increasingly outnumbered. They shifted about 5 points in favor of democrats in 2008 compared to 2004, putting the nail in the coffin in 2008, so I guess all the conservative whites left during those 4 years. Maybe Arnold pissed them off. If it were up to the whites, republicans would have won CA until 2008.

The respective party loyalties of racial groups have not changed significantly, their weight in the electorate has. Whites went from 79% in 1992 to 63% in 2008, hispanics went from 9% to 18%.

Again, you're lucky the hispanics don't turnout to vote in the same propotions as their population.

____________________

Xenobion:

The failure of the Perry campaign will be to tie White to Obama, something that doesn't exist. Many seats can potentially be lost with this cross connection Texas is pretty much in play since White is clean and Perry is an unpopular incumbent.

____________________

Stillow:

aaron - Its pretty widely known and accepted that CA has seen a mass departure of conservative leaning voters the past 10 years or so. They have moved out to other states such as AZ for example.

And Bush's overall numbers were not worse in 2004 in CA, they were better. He carried 44 percent overall in CA in 2004 as compared with 42 in 2000.

Latino's have proven to be just as annoyingly flakey as whtie voters. they are willing to bounce around, try differetn sides and views. Whereas say the black vote is domainted by Dems...the reasons for that are debatable, but that is what it is.

2008 was a wave election and that is tough to draw accurate conclusions from that. Obama won votes in 2008 he is not going to win in 2012. His margin of victory is going to decrease if he is even able to hold on to win in 2012.

Bush in 2004 was not a wave election...and it established a good and functional watermark for where support can drift. Latino's will support conservatives around 40 percent if the candidate is a good one. And IMO Dems will continue to lose white support in key states.

No one cares what Vermont voters are doing, they don't decide anything. Presidents are decided ith the 10 or real battleground states. And in states likeOH, OH, CA, NV, FL....that is where your election is determined.

With upcoming stars in the GOp like Marco Rubio it is going going to buil don Bush's watermark.

2008 was the most favorable year for a Democrats in decades...and STILL, Obama with all that momentum could not get to 53 percent of the vote. That is almost the best they can possibly do. And they only hit that 53- percent when every single star was aligned for them. As unpopular as Bush was in 2004 among his fiscally conservatives base, voters like me who did not support him, he still only did 2 points less than Obama did while all the stars were aligned.

Obama is an extremely polarizing president....he is trying to adopt that 50+1 Bush strategy. But he is trying to do that in a center right country.

In 2008 among latino's, we did not see a trend, we saw the absolute lowest possible watemrark for latino support of the GOP. Latino support will grow for the GOP in 2012....because I said, 2008 was the worst year for GOP candidates in decades.

In 2012 the GOP will see a jump in support from latino's as well as whites. tThus making O's re-election extrmeely difficult. He is struggling badly in key swing states....the proper conservative candidate will defeat him soundly.

We will probably never see antoher Nixon or Reagan like 49 state landslide in our lifetimes again, but a strong conservative candidate will defeat Obama soundly.

We already know how Indy's of all races are trending and its to the GOP based on recent elections in NJ, VA and MA. Even ultra liberal FL 19 saw a bump in GOP support by several points i nthe recent speical election.

So if there's a trend, its quite obvious its favoring the GOP....

____________________

jmartin4s:

I've been watching some Bill White videos on youtube and he actually criticized the Obama administration for spending too much. His campaign about trying to get the most out of every dollar will go over very well with Texas independents. He's a good man and his centrist views will make him a very good fit for Texas if he gets elected. The key is getting a lot of those annoyed people to vote for him that voted for KBH in the primary. This will make the difference between having governor CRAZY or Bill White.

____________________

Westwoodnc Westwoodnc:

Thank you Stillow for setting Aaron_in_TX straight. It's false to say that Bush didn't gain Latino votes in 2004. He increased his Latino vote significantly from 35% to 44% nationwide. You can't do that without swaying a huge chunk of those Latinos who are in California (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2004-11-10-hispanic-voters_x.htm). In fact, one convincing piece of evidence that Bush increased his Latino share of the vote in California is the fact that he won Loretta Sanchez's heavily Latino district in Orange County (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California's_47th_congressional_district). The district is two-thirds Latino. He couldnt've done that without making strong gains in the Latino vote. There are several Latino district like the 47th where Bush was losing nearly 2-1 in 2000 but cut it close to 50-50 in 2004. It was the shift in Latino vote in New Mexico that helped him win the state for the GOP since 1988.

It's also false what Aaron_in_TX said about the GOP winning the white vote between 1996-2004. According to this CNN exit poll (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/CA/P/00/epolls.0.html), Bush actually lost the white vote in 2000 by a rather large margin. In 2004, he garnered a measly 51%. That is NOT the kind of white voting share the GOP use to win when winning California. So the composition of the white vote between 1988 and a decade later changed dramatically that the GOP could easily lose them. Bush increased his AA and Latino vote in 2004 in California, but obviously combined with the bare majority of white votes, it's not enough to take the state.

____________________

jmartin4s:

One thing I've noticed one about Bill White is that he running on his record as a businessman and Mayor of Houston when running as Dem in a very blood red state. On the other hand Scott Brown got elected by running a smear campaign of Obama and Coakley in Massachusetts and made that the main argument for why he should be elected. I just think that is a very interesting comparison. Personally I prefer candidates who run on why they are qualified not ones who run and try win by starting a complete smear campaign.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Bush's overall numbers were not worse in 2004 in CA, they were better. He carried 44 percent overall in CA in 2004 as compared with 42 in 2000."

Nader got 3.8% of the CA vote in 2000. Gore got 53.5%, Bush 41.7.

2004 Kerry got 54.3, Bush 44.3. Democratic vote still increased despite greater margin among whites. Yeah I guess the margin was cut from 12 to 10. My bad. Lack of Nader vote seemed to hurt Kerry for whatever reason.

"Bush in 2004 was not a wave election"

I think 2004 has been over-interpreted. There was a big surge in evangelical whites throughout the country. Again, much of what happened in 2004 may very well prove to be the exception rather than the rule. 2000 is a more reliable benchmark since it was a low turnout election, reflecting the respective bases. 2004 and 2008 both had surges. McCain was slave to the 2004 map and it cost him dearly. There were so many different ways to flip the 2004 map, and only 1 way to defend it.

"we saw the absolute lowest possible watemrark for latino support of the GOP."

"Latino's have proven to be just as annoyingly flakey as whtie voters"

The democratic share has been remarkably stable among whites. Democrats have gotten 40-43% of the white vote since 1988. Gore got 42% of the white vote in 2000 and won 266 electoral votes. Obama won 43% of the white vote and 365 EV's. There was more than the white vote at work to create that increase.

Hispanics fluctuate a little more, but 2004 was definitely a break from the norm. No other year did republicans break 40 among them. There is some controversy over whether the exit polls were accurate, especially because vote totals in majority hispanic counties didn't reflect the exit polls.

http://faculty.washington.edu/mbarreto/papers/2004vote.pdf

I tend to think the exit polling was okay, that there was just a surge of conservative hispanics related to the overall evangelical surge. There was a definite gap between protestant and catholic hispanics in 2004. I agree with the analysis here, that suggests moral values combined with the national security character of the 2004 election had a unique effect on hispanic turnout.

http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/politics/faculty/nagler/abrajano_alvarez_nagler31.pdf

Average GOP support over the past 35 years among hispanics: 32.5%. McCain got 31%, slightly less than republicans traditionally get, despite his record as a very hispanic-friendly senator. Again, Bush in 2004 was the exception. I consider that the ceiling, not the norm. You seem not to get that.

____________________

Stillow:

aaron - Sure 44 was the ceiling, but it also establishes a watermark for future support. If in 2004 44 percent voted with the GOP, that means another candidate can appeal to that 44 percent who showed willingness to shift there voting pattern.

So if you have a low watemrakr of say 31 percent and a high of 44....That means there are 13 points there where a good GOP candidiate can possible convince. So if unemployment reamins high, taxes are high and things just are not all warm and fuzzy, you could very easily get that 44 back.

Like I said, 2008 was a huge wave for Dems....conservative turnout was somewhat supressed....I did not vote for Mccain as you know, I just voted Barr as a protest vote, but I am sure many like myself just did not vote.

Its tough to equate popular vote to electoral map vote. Kennedy beat Nixon by almost 100 EV's, but won a squaker in the popular vote. Obama won some key battleground states by 5 points or less...OH, FL, NC, etc. And much of that was due to Indy's, both white and latino breaking much more towards Obama as isthe case in wave cycles.

Its quite common for the nation to switch the party holding the WH after 8 years. Only once since WW2 has a party held the WH more than 8 straight years...that was Bush in 88 who rode reagan's popularity to victory. So not only was historic pattern favoring Obama, but so was the anti Bush mood coupled with the recession.

Everything was in O's favor....he was supposed to win in 2008. If I were Dem what would make me nervous is that he still could not get to 53 percent. Can you name me a more favorbale cycle in the past 30 years for Dems? His MOE is extremely small if he wants to hold key battlegrounds like FL, Oh, etc. His approval in these states is not good. that is a sign that Indy support has probably moved the other way as it did in recent elections. That is why I said he won votes in 2008 that he won't be ale to win in 2012 unless the GOP nominee is just totally wacked.

I'll bet you one of my dopy cats that O wins a smaller percentage of both whites and latino's in 2012 which will make his re-election very difficult. Because in 2008 he was supposed to win just from trend alone and he had everything in his favor...plus he could just blame Bush for all the problems. In 2012 its a different game. He has to defend himself.

Watermarks are very important because they give us a range to work in.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

The white house has switched parties back-to-back only once in the 20th century - 1976 followed by 1980.

If you're talking historical precedents, the likelihood of Obama's re-election is high, regardless of what happens in the 2010 midterms.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

I would argue losing a chamber of congress would probably help him. Then he wouldn't be able to do anything, and could blame republicans for it. Presidents tend to be more popular when they do less. When they do stuff, some people get really upset, which puts a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths.

Then anything he did manage to accomplish would be bi-partisan.

____________________

jamesia:

Yes, well MY husband is a Latino and strongly Democrat. In Texas!

I think it depends on the country of origin. But overall, Latinos are mostly Democratic - look at any election result in the past few years, and you'll see that. Obama just solidified it, and Congressional Dems will finalize support with the introduction of immigration reform.

In this climate, with the Tea Party, the GOP can't support that reform, which will basically mirror Bush's proposition. I bet McCain will be a vocal opponent, despite unwavering support before.

At any rate, my point about Latinos just meant to show that the GOP should be more concerned with losing large states than they seem to be. Especially in Texas. And I do have to agree with Aaron that prior to the influx of Latinos into CA, it was strongly conservative.

____________________

Stillow:

aaron - I would agree that if the GOP wins one of the chambers this fall it would benefit bama...cus it allows him to get a scapegoat. Nevertheless, I hope the GOP regain one chamber to at least stop this train from heading off the cliff.

That is a valid point on 1976, 1980. I guess my only comment would be that it was a highly liberal president who the country booted in favor of a very strong conservative one.

I don't see how O can win in 2012...because I see tradtionally red states going back that way, VA, CO, NV, OH, IN. Without that abilityto just point a finger at Bush, he loses his main weapon...and he will now be on the defensive for some of his unpopular policies, like HCR....

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR