Nachum
|
Posted on 12/25/2011 9:38:06 PM PST by Nachum
The 2012 presidential race will be decided in a dozen swing states, and President Obama faces a hard road to victory in many of them. “It appears this election will be much more like Bush-Gore” in 2000, said Democratic strategist Steve McMahon, co-founder of Alexandria-based Purple Strategies. “The president ain’t gonna win by 95 electoral votes.” Political strategists in both parties say the number of reliably Democratic states should give Mr. Obama at least 196 electoral votes, and the solidly Republican states should give the GOP nominee 191.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Did they count the multiple voters? The illegal aliens? The dead? The Mickey/Goofy/Adolph voters?
I can Guarantee Tennessee is not among them. AL “Man bear Pig” Gore lost here and that kept his shiny ass out of the WH!
By “decent candidate”, I assume you mean anyone but Mitt Romney?
I was tryin to be nice, but....BINGO
That’s how they get to 196.....
So the McCain count grows from 180 to 237 which leaves 33 short of the 270 votes needed to win. Where to find 33 additional votes?
Traditionally, Ohio has done the trick for Republicans with 18. Indiana would offer 11 more, Iowa 6, to put the Republican candidate over the top.
But what if Ohio disappoints, after all, there was a very disappointing referendum which might spell real trouble for Republicans in the next election? Is there another coalition which might get us over the top?
Obviously, Pennsylvania with 20 would easily substitute for Ohio but as a practical matter we can assume that if we lose Ohio we will also lose Pennsylvania. If we win Ohio, we will not necessarily win Pennsylvania but if we win Pennsylvania we will almost certainly win Ohio. Let us leave Pennsylvania out of the equation because if we win Pennsylvania we almost certainly will have won the election and we need not agonize further over these details.
What about Wisconsin? We will get strong opinions on these threads in both directions about whether we can pick up Wisconsin's 10 votes to substitute for more than half of the loss of Ohio's 18. If we get Wisconsin, where can we get another 8? Colorado would provide 9 and we are over the top. Or New Mexico and Nevada together provide 11 and we get home that way. Failing Wisconsin and Ohio we would need all three, Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico. My subjective feeling is that if we cannot get either Ohio or Wisconsin we will certainly lose one of Nevada Colorado or New Mexico because the election will have been nationalized against us.
What about Minnesota? Minnesota has been teasing us for years and never delivered. Look for Minnesota to follow the national trend but not set it. If the Republicans take Pennsylvania we will get Minnesota, but we won't need it.
Finally, Maine and New Hampshire, each with 4, could contribute 8 and in a pinch they could substitute for Colorado or New Mexico.
In this context we can see that Ohio is really the fulcrum of the election as it has been so many times in previous cycles. The state must be studied on a precinct by precinct basis and the national campaign really better start coordinating with Gov. Kasich and the state Republican Party and get things in hand.
We now understand the true significance of Wisconsin beyond its metaphorical meaning for the domination of the country by its own employees. Wisconsin might be our last hope if we lose Ohio for the same reason, public employees unions galvanizing the state against reform Republican administrations. The problem is, if we cannot persuade people of Ohio to adopt sanity against the undisguised cupidity of their own unions, we are unlikely to be able to do so in Wisconsin either. So far, it does not look particularly good in either place. It is shameful that the national Republican Party has not financially and otherwise supported the governors of Wisconsin and Ohio to the degree their importance warrants.
It is conceivable that Washington or Oregon could tip our way but we have been teased so often in the past that one cannot be too optimistic. It all depends on whether we have a wave election.
My best guess is that for weeks into the campaign it will look very close and then break at the end, likely for the Republican challenger. It will not look like Bush/ Gore. That is because the polls indicate that the independents would like to fire Obama but they want to make sure that they can trust the challenger. Once they conclude that the challenger will make an acceptable president, I believe they will do what they yearn to do now, turn Obama out.
This, of course, is dependent on the Democrats failing to contrive an October Surprise or fate serving up a Black Swan as it did last cycle.
All of this should be seen as a snapshot in a demographic motion picture. We are striving this cycle to restore the Republican Party of George Bush and Karl Rove without any real hope of making significant incursions into Democrat controlled states of the Northeast and the West Coast. Demographics will make our problem even worse in succeeding cycles. If we cannot win in this economic climate against Obama, we cannot hope to win in normal times against succeeding Democrats. Even if we can win this time because Obama has so egregiously overreached, we cannot expect economic winds to always be at our backs. Politics is not won by playing defense. Bull Halsey, quoted in my tagline, said it, "attack, repeat, attack."
The Republican Party faces a daunting demographic challenge which requires a fundamental change in the way the party operates. Things have got to be shaken up. As between Romney and Gingrich, I have made my choice about which man can change the electoral landscape, who can evade the demographic tsunami which threatens to sweep Republicans off the board for generations, who can throttle the bureaucracy which in turn choking us, and defrock our tyrants in black robes.
As Gingrich says, this is the most important election since 1860. If we lose this election we probably lose the Republic. If we win this election and do not change the way the game is played, we will inevitably lose the Republic in the next election, or the next. Which man fits?
“Once they conclude that the challenger will make an acceptable president, I believe they will do what they yearn to do now, turn Obama out.”
That’s the best summary I’ve seen so far. People really do want an alternative to Obama.
But people don’t naturally trust Romney. If they did he would already be out front. Reagan, who was largely unknown at the start of the national campaign, had some of the same issue and he was able to overcome it once he got in front of the American people. He became more likable, more trustworthy, and once the momentum got started, it was all over for Carter.
Gingrich is old news, already not trusted by alot of people. Can he overcome this if he is the nominee? At this point I’m not convinced. Only time will tell.
“A Gallup/USA Today poll in mid-December showed Mr. Obama trailing former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney by 5 percentage points in the 12 battleground states, and he trailed former House Speaker Newt Gingrich by 3 percentage points in those states. Nationwide, Mr. Obama leads Mr. Gingrich by 6 points and Mr. Romney by 1 point in the poll.”
So much for, only Romney can beat Obama.
I think that if Rick Santorum is on the balot,PA would be in the Rep column.
Thank you for your excellent analysis!
My fear is that the conservative vote will be hopelessly split during the primaries, allowing Romney to take the prize even though he fails to command more than a quarter of the allegience of the GOP.
The one longshot scenario that intrigues me is Palin jumping back in to a hopelessly mired field.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
