Last week, a New York Times blogger predicted Mitt Romney would lose the election to President Barack Obama.
He began with polling data that projects an Obama victory in Romney’s home state, Massachusetts. Using this information, the blogger contends that because only three presidential candidates have lost their home states but won the presidency, Romney might be at risk of loss.There is no question Romney is at risk of loss.
But Obama is also at risk of loss because this is the nature of presidential elections. Furthermore, the correlation between losing one’s home state and losing the presidential election is not the sole statistical predictor of the Electoral College.
For example, Ohio’s presidential pick has matched America’s pick for the last 11 elections. It gets better: Since 1904, the Ohio victor has taken the Oval Office 25 out of 27 times. The latest Real Clear Politics polling information indicates Romney is only behind Obama a few points in Ohio.
We can safely assume Romney will lose left-leaning Massachusetts, but we cannot safely say Obama will take Ohio. It is possible Romney might lose his home state and win Ohio. In this case, taking a guess at the 2012 election – considering both the Romney home state loss and Ohio victory implications – results in a contradiction.
According to these two historical election statistics, if Romney loses Massachusetts and wins Ohio, he should both lose and win the presidency. Of course, this is not possible.
It’s time to stop considering everything but the substance of the politics and the sheer electoral count regarding the 2012 outcome.
An example of current polling data supporting the close race theory comes directly from the New York Times. The paper projects Obama at 217 electoral votes and Romney at 206, and 270 are needed to win.
However, there are expected deciding factors. First, under the Obama administration, Americans’ median income has dropped by about $3,000. The New York Times confirms this figure.
Second, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, during Obama’s term in office, unemployment has risen slightly from 7.8 percent to 8.6 percent. Third, the average gasoline price has skyrocketed nearly 100 percent from $1.86 to $3.62 per gallon since Obama’s inauguration, according to GasBuddy.com.
Americans voted for Obama expecting more. He promised jobs and recovery, but instead, we declined. People are being paid less, gas costs more and unemployment is stuck. It is not that the president’s heart is not in the right place. He has certainly spent and borrowed a great deal in an effort to solve our economic problems, but this has not spurred recovery.
The most important statistic is the national debt. Under Obama, the total federal debt has grown $5.1 trillion, from $10.6 trillion to $15.7 trillion. Our federal debt is broken into two types: held by the public and intergovernmental.
Debt held by the public is debt held by people, corporations, state and local governments, foreign governments and all other non-federal entities. Intergovernmental debt is money the federal government borrows from its own funds.
The president cannot campaign on his accomplishments if Romney cites the median income, gas price, unemployment numbers and debt figures, and people listen. People’s responses to the debates will decide the election, and Massachusetts will not decide a thing.
Michael Stikkel is a junior computer engineering major. His column appears online weekly. He can be reached at mcstikke@syr.edu.