Elektorresultatet 2012. Varje ruta representerar en elektorsröst. Bild från Wikipedia.
Barack Obama vann presidentvalet (50,8 procent mot Romneys 47,5, 332 elektorröster mot 206) och Demokraterna behöll majoriteten i senaten, medan Republikanerna behöll sin majoritet i representanthuset. Intressant med lite spekulationer inför nästa val, på två plan: 1) hur förändras Republikanerna av denna förlust och vilka kandidater kan tänkas vilja bli presidentkandidat för dem 2016? 2) Valmatten: en av de stora diskussionerna kring valet i år har varit Nate Silver och andra statistikers uppsving som auktoriteter om val och valrörelser. Vad säger de då om "säkra stater" etc, som är intressant inför 2016?
Michael Tomasky hävdar i New York Review of Books att Republikanernas högersväng kombinerat med förändrad demografi gör att R förlorat flera stater till att vara "säkra" stater för Demokraterna i presidentval. Därför har Demokraterna idag en stor "inbyggd fördel" i presidentvalen, där en generisk demokrat har 30 fler säkra platser i electoral college än vad den generiske republikanen har.
"Republicans—the right-wing base and the tremulous politicians who live in fear of it—have minimized their own chances in a number of states, representing a large chunk of electoral votes, where the party was once dominant at the presidential level but where it’s now struggling to scratch out narrow wins. Notable among these are Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado (now totaling forty electoral votes). They tightened up after the first debate—Ohio less so than the other two—but the fact remains that they are states the GOP once won with little effort. Going farther back, to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush’s time, Republicans were winning states where the idea of them investing even a dime today seems laughable: New Jersey, Illinois, Maryland, and the biggest prize of all, California.Tomasky diskuterar också vilka kandidater som kan tänkas tävla om att bli partiets presidentkandidat 2016, och lyfter fram åtta namn varav sex är "hard right".
This didn’t just happen. While these states were moving to the left demographically—with more nonwhite voters and more white, progressive-minded, information-age professionals—the GOP was pushing farther and farther to the right, antagonizing and alarming both groups. The electoral effect is that today, the built-in Democratic advantage in the electoral college among states that aren’t contested is thirty votes. That is, virtually any Democratic nominee is assured of 221 electoral votes, while a generic Republican is assured of just 191."
"We can already project forward to the likely roster of GOP candidates who will strive for the party’s nomination next time if Romney loses: Paul Ryan, Bush, Rubio, and Chris Christie in the top tier; Sarah Palin leading an unlikely second echelon that might also include Mike Huckabee, South Carolina Senator and Tea Party favorite Jim DeMint, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, grabbing the reins from his father, and others. Six of those eight are hard right. The GOP will probably need to experience one more drubbing—at the hands, possibly, of no less an enemy than Hillary Clinton—to get the message."Intressant spekulation: Hillary Clinton vinner presidentvalet 2016 mot en riktig högerkandidat?
Nate Silver i New York Times lyfter också fram att Republikanerna har ett problem med elektor-matten. Demokraterna under Obama har gått framåt i swing states som Ohio, Florida, Colorado, Virginia och North Carolina. Republikanerna har däremot gått fram i stater där de redan har en majoritet, och distributionen av de folkliga rösterna är därför ineffektiv för dem vad gäller utväxling i elektorer.
"Missouri, once a tossup, is now solidly Republican. And West Virginia, which was once Democratic-leaning enough that Michael Dukakis carried it in 1988, voted for Mr. Romney by 27 points on Tuesday.Al Gore fick i valet 2000 en majoritet av rösterna, men förlorade ändå valet eftersom han hade färre elektorsröster. Nu ser det istället ut som att Republikanerna har detta problem.
The problem for Republicans is that in states like these, and others like Tennessee, Kentucky and Arkansas, they are now winning by such large margins there that their vote is distributed inefficiently in terms of the Electoral College.
By contrast, a large number of electorally critical states – both traditional swing states like Iowa and Pennsylvania and newer ones like Colorado and Nevada – have been Democratic-leaning in the past two elections. If Democrats lose the election in a blowout, they would probably lose these states as well. But in a close election, they are favored in them."
---
Nate Silver, "As Nation and Parties Change, Republicans Are at an Electoral College Disadvantage", NYT 9 november
Michael Tomasky, Elizabeth Drew, and Cass R. Sunstein, "The Election—I", New York Review of Books, November 8, 2012
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar