Skip to comments.Romney Faces a "Blue Wall" -- But Is It Solid?
Posted on 05/18/2012 7:55:36 PM PDT by neverdem
Last week, I wrote a piece suggesting that Mitt Romney's path to the presidency wasn't necessarily narrow. Rather, the breadth of that path will depend on "environmental" factors that could ultimately push him well past the 286 electoral vote ceiling that has seemingly been imposed upon the Republican party since 1992.
On the other hand, Ron Brownstein suggests that this ceiling is an outgrowth of demography and changing coalitions, and is largely etched into our electoral map. This has created a blue wall consisting of the 11 states from Maryland to Maine (except New Hampshire); the three West Coast states; and Michigan, Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Hawaii (plus the District of Columbia).
While Republicans fared well in these states from 1968 through 1988, since 1992 the increase in the minority population and the movement of Northern suburbs toward the Democrats has, according to Brownstein, placed these states out of reach for the party of Lincoln.
So which is it -- bad luck in the overall playing field, or have a substantial number of states moved irrevocably toward Democrats?
As it turns out, we can test these hypotheses fairly easily. And, as it also turns out, the truth is a bit of both.
What we can do is control for any national effects by looking at the states Partisan Voting Index, or PVI, over the past few elections (Ive chosen 1980 through 2008 in order to capture trends that started pre-1992).
As a refresher, PVI tells us how a state votes compared to the country as a whole. In other words, Reagan won Massachusetts with 51 percent of the vote in 1984. Someone unfamiliar with American politics might therefore have labeled Massachusetts a swing state. But of course, Reagan was winning nationally with 59 percent of the vote that year, in...
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Principles? What are those?
Wrong, double wrong, and triple wrong.
I've followed Congressional voting records for the better part of two decades now. Years ago when Virgil Goode was a Democrat Congressman from Virginia, he had a better voting record than most of the Republicans in Congress. I remember predicting that he's eventually end up a Republican, which came true a couple of cycles later.
Assuming he's "centre-left at best" because he is a former Democrat is as erroneous as assuming that Reagan was centre-left at best because he was a former Democrat.
I see a need for what I'd call a Voters' Bill of Rights involving a bit more than just instant runoff elections however. Again the first item of such a bill HAS TO BE runoff elections or instant runoff elections for all public offices. Nobody should ever fear to vote his first choice, at least on a first ballot, and nobody should ever hold any public office with less than 50% of the vote.
There should also be a None-Of-Above choice on all ballots for public office and if that choice ever wins, then the other candidates should be barred for life from holding any public office and the parties sponsoring them should be barred for at least ten years from sponsoring candidates for that particular office. The penalty for running dead wood for public offices should be severe.
Another item on such a voters' bill of rights should be something which would eliminate voting fraud for all time and if that means getting rid of the secret ballot or at least limiting it somehow or other, so be it, we're paying too high a price for it. Or it could mean that when an election is within one percentage point, send both people to congress with half of a vote each. You could expect them to split their vote on ideological issues but vote identically on issues which affect their own district.
There should be a provision that when a president is impeached and removed, his VP goes out the door with him and the office is either vacant until the next election or an emergency election is held to fill the office for the remainder of the current term. Granted removing a president should be difficult but it should not be impossible and if we couldn't remove Slick, we'd not have been able to remove Hitler or Nero either.
What happened in 98/99 was that Trent Lott simply refused to hand the presidency over to Algor with a year to go on Slick's second term, for obvious reasons. The situation should not be possible.
A person should need to be a US citizen for 18 years before voting in a US election. It should not be possible for a rogue political party to rule our land by simply importing large voting blocks for itself. I had to be a citizen for 18 years prior to voting and I don't view any immigrants as better than I am.
There should also be some mechanism to prevent utterly unqualified people from holding high offices. Certainly a candidate for president or vice president, or for US Senator or member of the House of Representatives should need to obtain the same basic and simple secret level security clearance which anybody would need to be a guard at the gate of any military base in our land. That isn't asking for much but it would have spared us from the last two democrat presidents.
There are a few other things you'd want but that's the main gist of it. There is also a question as to the extent the people should be voting on issues directly since we now have the technology to allow that while the founding fathers did not. You could get some of these social issues settled once and for all and out of politics, and you could limit the scope for corruption and bribery by letting the people themselves settle at least some kinds of issues.
*Red/Blue state BS: Several FReepers that are receiving this ping have been rightly objecting to the GOP being labeled “Red” for years. Red is most assuredly the color of rage, unrest and Communism. Blue represents tranquility and order. The only moniker I find to be more incorrectly used by the MSM/NEA/etc. is the insistence of referring to Nazis as "right wing". What part of "National SOCIALISM" isn't understood?
Isn’t Virgil Goode running to help throw swing states such as Virginia to Obama?
No. He is running because he believes he can make the country better. Will Romney? No way. Will Obama? No way. I know you are a Romney lover so just vote for your hero but leave me out of it.
No, I am a realist. It is Obama or Romney. I’ll take Romney. He’ll sign the Obamacare repeal. Obama won’t.
Realist? Sure but because you and others SETTLE that is why we are in the mess we are in. Can’t we be bold for once?
There is no use in arguing with them, KansasGirl. I’ve given up arguiung with them.
Bold? First of all, helping to re-elect Obama is not bold. It’s stupid. Second of all, I voted didn’t vote for Romney in the primary. I don’t settle, the candidates I supported lost the primary. Romney won it. That is the hand we have been dealt. Not the hand I wanted or that you wanted, but the reality is, Obama MUST go, and Romney is the only alternative who has a chance at defeating him in November. Would I rather get a President Palin in November, heck yeah, but sadly that is not gonna happen whether I cast my vote for her or not.
If you live in a deep-blue state, e.g., CA, NY, then you can vote for who ever you please as it wont make a difference. But, you can still donate effectively as that method of support knows no bounds. On the other hand, if you live in a GW Bush 2004 state that went into the 0bama column in 2008, then you have the duty. 0bama must be defeated; take one for the team.
Outstanding comment, Thank You very much.
Doing anything other than supporting Romney is basically trying to get Bork Obunga re-elected.
That’s absolutely right.
I assume you mean post 23 and the notion of a voters’ bill of rights. Please feel free to pass that one around, those ideas need to get out.
I agree with you.....still upset over the whole thing. November will vote for Romney grudgingly, but I hate even saying it at least this early.
I guess my hate for Obama trumps my disdain for Romney! ;-)
There should also be a None-Of-Above choice on all ballots for public office and if that choice ever wins, then the other candidates should be barred for life from holding any public office and the parties sponsoring them should be barred for at least ten years from sponsoring candidates for that particular office. The penalty for running dead wood for public offices should be severe.Excellent post #23. Particularly this detail. I love it. Great idea.
Red is also the color of passion and devotion. Which is why Marx chose it, and that is something we can uses in our zeal to restore our rights as preserved by Constitutionally finite(small) government. Historic uses by the left for movement in the other direction not-withstanding.
What is troubling about this aside from the race based collation of democratic party is the California invasion of Nevada.
Perhaps we should recommend that Nevada republicans attempt to fight this invasion with stricter(longer) residency requirements, and some investigation regarding the cross border political influence of California.
I think it very unlikely given democratic practices else where that Nevada Democrats are not buss in Californians to throw Nevada elections.
The big issue however is California that flee their own states self-destruction while holding on to the political values that led to that same self-destruction.
Refugees should assimilate not bring their problems with them.
“Red is also the color of passion and devotion. Which is why Marx chose it, and that is something we can uses in our zeal to restore our rights as preserved by Constitutionally finite(small) government. Historic uses by the left for movement in the other direction not-withstanding.”
You make a very good point. I’ve never thought of it that way before.
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.