Home 2012 races Karl Rove concedes election to Obama

Karl Rove concedes election to Obama


( – promoted by lowkell)

by Paul Goldman

In his analysis of the Electoral College map, GOP guru Karl Rove, perhaps the leading anti-Obamacon among the top Republican campaign guys, concedes the 2012 to President Obama. Of course, he claims to do no such thing, indeed has cleverly set-up the numbers so as to show Romney “gaining” strength in the coming months.

However: His analysis basically confirms what was considered my controversial article for Fox News claiming that the President is all but unbeatable unless unexpected events intercede to scramble the Electoral College math [always a possibility].

Rovian electoral analysis concedes that the Obama-Biden ticket is a sure winner, again barring the totally unforeseeable, in states accounting for 220 of the 270 electoral votes needed to gain re-election. Actually, the number is higher, but no need to quibble with Mr. Rove on this.

As for the Mittster, the Rove crystal ball gives the de facto GOP nominee only 93 electoral votes, again way below what is the true number. For example, the Rove analysis only assumes states like Georgia, Kentucky and Texas are “lean” Romney at this point. That’s simply not true based on any study of election statistics. If Romney can’t win those states, he is going to lose in a landslide! Even the lame McCain campaign won those states handily. There is no evidence the pro-McCain vote in those state in any significant numbers are switching to the President. In terms of first-time or non-votes in 2008, there aren’t enough to swing the state Democratic.

But like I say: We shall let Mr. Rove have his fun so he show Romney “gaining” and putting these states magically into the former Bay State Governor’s column.

SO: Let’s look at the 5 states – Minnesota, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio and Pennsylvania – that Mr. Rove puts in the “lean” Obama column.

Minnesota and Nevada are definitely going to vote for the President based on any analysis short of a unpredictable once in a hundred year event. They combine for 16 electoral college votes.

Running total: Obama has 236 in the bag.


Romney didn’t show much strength in New Hampshire in either the 2008 or 2012 GOP primaries. But let’s leave the Granite State in the toss-up column.

The Republicans every four years manage to convince the press they have a “shot” at carrying Pennsylvania. They don’t. The Keystone State will go Democrat for the 6th time in a row.

Running total: The Big O now has 256 electoral votes by Mr. Rove’s own admission, reading between the lines.

Which means: Romney is going to have to do something never before in any presidential election, “run the table” on every crucial swing state without losing any of those “lean” GOP states which Mr. Rove’s analysis hints might be in play this year.

If the President wins either New Hampshire or Iowa – this is a high possibility – then Romney must-win all the following: Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia.

Romney isn’t considered a strong GOP contender in any of these battleground states. McCain carried Missouri last time in a photo finish, so Romney should win the Show-Me state if he is going to prove to be a credible contender.

If Romney can improve his standing among the GOP’s “faith and family” voters so as not to suffer McCain’s fate with these voters, then he should take North Carolina for sure.

But the others are going to be hand to hand combat with no room for error.

Yes, George W. Bush did it twice. But he got the benefit of the “hanging chad” in 2000 and a massive incumbency-led turnout effort among the GOP born again base in 2004.

Romney shows no ability of hitting the Bush 2004 number although he should do better than McCain.

But as of right now, with all Mr. Rove knows, his analysis concedes the election to the President.

Clearly, Karl cannot say that given his role on Fox News and trying to raise all that money for his PAC, given the huge fees he will earn.

But his numbers, when dissected, are clear – he has conceded the election to the President.

Which isn’t to say anyone should take anything for granted.

You still need to run through the tape, events are often in the saddle and they ride mankind to quote Emerson.

  • Elaine in Roanoke

    In 2000, I would contend that two things made George W. Bush the president. First, Al Gore didn’t ask for a recount of the entire state of Florida. Second, the Supreme Court made a completely political decision to select Bush by judicial fiat by overturning the ruling of the Florida Supreme Court to allow a partial recount, thus marking the first time that nine people voted and chose the president, then ruled that its decision was not to be considered a precedent.

    I always felt that the Supreme Court should have followed the Constitution, stated that there was ample reason to throw  the election into the House of Representatives, as was done in 1876. Bush would have won there, but at least the rule of law would have been followed.

  • kindler

    Saying Obama is basically a lock to win is like those people who tell you to invest in x because you are guaranteed to make money.

    I agree that Obama’s chances look very good right now.  But if Democrats sit on our hands rather than swarming the neighborhoods for the president and the whole ticket, we could easily lose.  

    And the economy, of course, is the other big variable.  If it turns down sharply — thanks to Republican austerity policies at the state and federal levels — Obama’s numbers will dip too.

    Note the other thing that Rove and company keep saying is to focus down ballot, to steal the Senate and keep the House so that if Obama is re-elected, they can prevent him from doing anything. Very important for us to keep those races high on the agenda too.