Election-2012 in the USA: a deal for Obama and Romney

After winning the “primaries” in Texas on May 29, Mitt Romney became the de facto presidential candidate of the Republican Party, having secured the support of the required number of delegates to the future party convention. The progress of the election campaign is analyzed for Radio Liberty by international Radio Liberty observers Efim Fistein and Brian Whitmore. The conversation is conducted by Kirill Kobrin.

Kobrin: If you look at the so-called political or “party” maps of the United States, we will see a very interesting picture. Everything that goes in the middle, the center, the “axis” of the country is all for the Republicans. The fact that “on the edges” (on the right and on the left - in the East and in the West) - almost everyone is for the Democrats. Is this how it happened historically?

Whitmore: This has happened historically in the last few election cycles. Previously, for example, California was a Republican state, now it is a 100% Democratic state. The process began with the election, which Clinton won, and continues to this day. The northwest used to be “Republican territory,” while the south used to be Democratic territory. Now it's the other way around. But I would make a few exceptions. States that are in the “middle”, like Colorado, New Mexico, are not entirely Republican. These are the key swing states. Therefore, it is not entirely accurate that only in the west and in the east are Democrats, and in the middle are Republicans.

Kobrin: Yefim, how much has the US history of the last 20 years changed this alignment, in your opinion?

Fishtaine: We must proceed from the fact that these arrangements are always temporary. Historically there was a completely different picture. Let's not forget that the Democratic Party was a typically southern party, the Republican Party was a northern one. And today... Florida State, for example. Can it be called democratic? Absolutely not. Republicans have been winning there recently, especially under the influence of emigrants from Cuba. It swung dramatically in favor of the Republicans. California, of course, is mostly a Democratic state, but with some exceptions - Arnold Schwarzenegger was by no means a Democrat when he became governor of the state. This balance of forces is constantly in flux. There are, of course, some strongholds. But this cannot be taken literally, as a once and for all given preference.

Kobrin: I agree. Illinois is a state in the Northwest, but it is a pro-Democrat state. And the question is: how can such a political-geographical alignment affect the strategy of the two main candidates - Barack Obama and Mitt Romney?

Whitmore: Obama's strategy is to hold 19 states plus Washington, which John Kerry won 8 years ago. It's easy. All of these states will vote 100% for Obama; this gives 246 electors. We must always remember that presidential elections in the United States are a popular vote, but they take place in the states, where they choose electors, who, in turn, choose the president. To become president, you need to receive the support of 270 electors. This means Obama must find 24 more electors. It's not very difficult. His staff has 4 different strategies to do this. There is a "Western strategy" in which he must win Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and Iowa. This will give him 272 electors - and victory. There is a “Midwestern strategy” - win the key state of Ohio, plus Iowa (exactly 270 electors). There is a “southern strategy”, the most difficult for Obama. He should win North Carolina and Virginia. He won here 4 years ago, but this time it will be much more difficult. Obama is currently leading in the polls in Virginia, but Romney is leading in North Carolina. The Southern Strategy would have given 274 electors to Obama. And the last strategy has to do with Florida alone. If he wins in Florida, that's it. This is 275.

Romney is much more difficult. He has only one strategy - the so-called “3+2+1”. He must hold all the states that McCain won 4 years ago, which only gives him 173 electors. This means he must find almost 97 more. How can he do this? He must win three states that traditionally vote for Republicans, which Obama won 4 years ago - Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia. This would give him 39 more electors. Plus he should win both Florida and Ohio - that's another 47. That would give him 259 electors. He needs 11 more. And there are only two places where you can get them - either Michigan (his home state) or Pennsylvania. But both of these states have voted Democratic in the last few elections.

Kobrin: It turns out that Obama, judging by these strategies, should focus on local, private levels, and Romney should strike in all directions at once.

Fishtaine: Today, Obama is, on average, ahead of Romney in national polls by just 2 points, that is, within the limits of statistical error. Each survey records a new situation. Of course, Brian is right that the national figure means little. It only remains to recall that, firstly, the election campaign has not actually begun. In fact, everything starts, most likely, only in August. I want to remind you of a curious situation in the past. When elected for a second term, Ronald Reagan won in 49 states. This, of course, cannot happen again - but note, nothing a few months before these elections did not say that there would be such a decisive victory. So I would look forward to the start of the crucial phase of the election race.