Posted on 03/10/2012 3:43:48 PM PST by jocon307
The Republican primary has revealed distinct geographic tendencies. Mitt Romney is dominant in New England and in the West. Newt Gingrich has run well in the Deep South, while Rick Santorum has done well in caucus states, the Great Plains, and the peripheral South (it remains to be seen whether his support has bled into Gingrich's strength in the Deep South). That leaves the Midwest as a battleground between Romney and Santorum.
While Romney had a good night on Super Tuesday, the truth is that he did nothing to alter the basic regional nature of his support....
Given the structure of the primary season, this portends a long slog to the nomination, and makes it difficult for Romney to wrap up the nomination early on. Consider the schedule, and the following possible outcomes:
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
The author amusingly ponders who votes in the Republican primaries in some 99.999% hard left districts.
Raising my little hand!!
You are right. If we want a conservative who can win, it’s Santorum. If you want a ton of Dems seriously unhappy with Obama, you want Romney. A lot of liberal or apolitical Jews would vote Romney in the general. They want him for the same reason we don’t. He’s not conservative.
Another question: could we bring about a brokered convention? I don’t think it’s within our control. It would be more controllable to have one drop out, or to throw the conservative vote to one. And we see how hard that is. No one wants to vote for the “other” guy.
So I guess we get Romney, even in Alabama and Mississippi. Because we are too stupid or stubborn to coalesce.
Rubio on the ticket would really make it easier to vote for Romney or Santorum. Newt/Rubio -—at this point, like Christmas morning!
If all you care about is "winning," draft Hillary Clinton at the convention. Because values and policies don't matter.
Romney starts out with none of the base and is forced to play an uphill battle trying to peel off the same demographics that are Obama's core. Bad idea. Moderates lose. Not to mention, Romney has NOTHING in his stump speech except "fixing the economy." The jobs reports for the last 3 months were revised up to look fantastic. The economy's getting better and we won't be able to run on it most likely. Which is fine, since actual conservative Republicans can win elections on other issues. But Romney can't. Obamacare would become the major issue and he is completely neutered on arguing for the philosophy of keeping the government out of our lives by Romneycare. He believes in the liberal welfare state wholeheartedly and absolutely no one believes he's a social conservative, his supporters or detractors. He is Obama lite, pure and simple, and cannot win against the real thing.
Newt already mentioned Martinez as a possible V.P. pick for him. I don't know much about her. Obviously he's mentioned Rubio too. I think going for Hispanics is a big mistake against Obama. They will never desert Obama. The non-white Hispanics which make up the vast majority of them identify with Obama because of his skin color. Republicans can get Hispanic votes, but only when the Democrat is white, not a "person of color." In the age of "blatinos" and other race mixed people, a new racial divide is emerging, "people of color" (as the MSM calls them "globals") and whites. It's culturally true and the Democrats will be pushing the "people of color" vs. whites meme hardcore.
The ticket to win is Newt/Santorum or Santorum/Newt. The conservative contrast with Obama is there, both of them can connect to the middle class/blue collar that Romney can't, and they have credentials and a track record backing EVERY conservative principle. They can cede Florida to the Dems while picking up PA and other Midwest/blue collar states. Newt has the ability to communicate and explain why conservative ideas are best and Rick has "nice guy" appeal.
Newt/Rubio -—at this point, like Christmas morning!
_______________________________________________________________
That would be better than Christmas morning.
The problem with Gingrich is his “unfavorables” are very high.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that Romney does not have the support of the base (how can you win without your base?) and will be vying for, basically, Obama voters, many of which he won’t win.
Santorum/Gingrich, or vice/versa would be OK by me, I”m just not sure the math is there for it.
But, let’s face it, winning in November is of paramount importance. We’ve got to get rid of Obama and the Dems in the Senate because we’ve got to repeal and replace Obamacare, RIGHT NOW, before it becomes entrenched.
And don’t forget the Supreme Court, some of those folks are o.l.d. and we cannot, cannot, must not have a Dem pres. replacing them.
Keep in mind I’m not talking about all Hispanics, just the ones who voted for Obummer in 2008. I don’t see many of them changing their vote.
You don’t seem to have been reading the media and polling on Hispanic support for Obama. This article lays it out. It says Rubio does help with some of them, but not an overwhelming amount. I agree he will help big with Florida just like any Senator would help with his home state. How do you win without Florida? Try the 2004 map and replace Florida with Pennsylvania. I’m not saying don’t try to appeal to Hispanics, but the payoff will not be big enough to justify playing a big card like the V.P. slot for it.
If you think 73% of Hispanics approving of Obama has nothing to do with race or color, you are hopelessly ignorant of racial politics in this country. Race obviously means something for the portion who said that they would consider voting for Republicans if Rubio was on the ticket. And you seem to be acknowledging this when you yourself say Rubio would help get Hispanic votes (just like Obama helped get black votes?). Whites are taught not to be racist by our educational system, but the exact opposite is true for all other races. Same deal with women. Men are taught not to be sexist, but the exact opposite is true for women.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2854921/posts
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sfl-poll-hispanic-obama-rubio-20120305,0,7065301.story
Hispanic voters in Florida and across the country give exceedingly high marks to President Barack Obama and overwhelmingly favor his re-election.
Almost one-quarter of U.S. Hispanic voters said they would be more willing to vote for a Republican if Rubio was on the ticket. The number rose to almost four in ten Florida voters, Fox News Latino reported.
The national poll of likely Hispanic voters indicated that 73 percent of them approved of Obama’s performance in office.
Without a Hispanic vice presidential candidate on the Republican ticket, Hispanic voters nationally favor Obama. In hypothetical head to head matchups with the four Republican presidential candidates, none would get more than 14 percent of the Hispanic vote in November.
Number one, polls mean NOTHING now. They are totally and completely worthless to use as a basis for picking electable candidates, and are quite possibly counterproductive. After all, Democrats can drive up someone's unfavorables if they perceive them as a greater threat. People are NOT paying attention so those vague impressions by the MSM drive such polls. The polls probably won't mean anything until after the conventions when people are paying attention. Unfavorables are a very soft polling statistic and soft indicator. Romney's unfavorables have gone up recently too. And I think Santorum's. Cheney's were always high. That statistic doesn't have much to do with who people would elect as President. If it did, you may as well not run this year, because people like Obama even when they disapprove of his job performance. If people think Newt will have better job performance than Obama, they'll vote for him even if they like Obama more personally.
We’ll see. The thing that will hurt the GOP candidate with Hispanics the most is the harsh, anti-immigrant rhetoric taken on during the Primary. (Especially from Romney; trying to act like a tough guy.) The American Mexicans, who are citizens, do have a soft spot in their heart for the immigrants who are here illegally to escape life in Mexico. Rick Perry would have done well among Hispanics. Of the ones left in the race now, I’m thinking Newt would have the most success getting a nice share of the Hispanic vote. And, btw.........
.....Speaking of replacing FL with PA: There are three States of which whomever wins two (2) of those three (3) will win the White House; never fails. Those three States are: Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. Ya gotta get two of those three to move into 1600 Pennslyvania Avenue. No one has been elected President, in modern history, without winning at least two of those three States. I still say we need Rubio on the Ticket.
I don’t disagree with any of that. I think it’s foolish to have harsh rhetoric on illegal immigration. Newt is correct in having a more realistic plan that doesn’t risk breaking up families who’ve been here a long time. Remember when Ann Coulter bashed Newt for supposedly having harsh rhetoric that turns people off but then not following through and coming up with a soft policy? That’s not true for Newt but it is for Mitt on immigration. He’s speaking a hard-line immigration policy but he is not going to deliver on it. So he’s losing all the votes over something he’s not even going to be able or willing to do.
Note that Bush lost PA and won FL and OH in 2004. All I’m saying is with Rick on the ticket, we can maybe pick up PA and afford to lose FL. I am not comfortable with how much better Romney did in FL vs. OH. Seems to me the state is trending more liberal.
“Watching Huck on Faux. Had to turn it off cuz the shilling and inevitability for Mittens continues.”
Yes - it was so blatant, my jaw dropped in disbelief. Not because the Huckster supports him, but because he was so stupid to be that obvious about it. It started from the start and got progressively worse, with every edited clip and his “interviewing” each person in the group.
I still say we need Rubio on the Ticket.
***********************
Just a question... Why should Rubio give up his Senate seat to become a VP, when he knows he isn’t eligible to move up to President because he isn’t a NBC?
Like Jindal, he was born in the US of parents having citizenship in foreign countries.
Just because McCain and Obama got away with running for Prez, and neither being a NBC (as you recall, McCain was born in Panama, not the Canal Zone) is no reason to continue to ignore the Constitution that requires an NBC.
Well, if he knows that, they he probably will decline the VP offer when given; and it will be given.
Martinez is good, but I don’t see the GOPE going for another first-term female governor.
“I don’t see the GOPE going for another first-term female governor.”
Yes, I’ve thought of that too.
How about that guy who’s the, what? Governor is it, of Puerto Rico? He’s very right wing and very handsome. Are persons born in Peurto Ricans eligible to be President? And Guam and all those possessions?
I probably sound very ignorant, but I’ve never thought of this before.
Could we win NY with a bone fide Peurto Rican candidate on the ticket?
I gotta say in terms of winning the Hispanic vote you’d probably want someone of Mexican backround, not Cuban or Peurto Rican or etc.
“I don’t see the GOPE going for another first-term female governor.”
Yes, I’ve thought of that too.
How about that guy who’s the, what? Governor is it, of Puerto Rico? He’s very right wing and very handsome. Are persons born in Peurto Ricans eligible to be President? And Guam and all those possessions?
I probably sound very ignorant, but I’ve never thought of this before.
Could we win NY with a bone fide Peurto Rican candidate on the ticket?
I gotta say in terms of winning the Hispanic vote you’d probably want someone of Mexican backround, not Cuban or Peurto Rican or etc.
So we’re all race panderers when it comes to trying to win elections?
“So we’re all race panderers when it comes to trying to win elections?”
I’m looking at it more like country of origin pandering.
I don’t really have a problem with ethnic solidarity, provided it is a secondary or tertiary consideration.
I’ve often wondered if I were black if I would have voted for Obama. Assuming that my general views would be unchanged I conclude I would not have voted for him due to his abominable anti-life stances.
When I lived in NYC there were always so, so, so many people to vote for. Judges and council people and all kinds of things. I was young and I didn’t know what 1/2 the jobs were, much less any of the candidates below the top of the ticket. I also was not a straight party voter as I have become.
So, first I’d vote for the people I intended to vote for, and then maybe I’d have an opinion on some of the others, and when I ran out of good reasons to vote for (or against) folks I’d vote for those who had an Irish last name. Hey, who knows, they might not even have been really “Irish” at all.
So, I can’t castigate others for doing what I did.
Most people don’t pay a tenth of the amount of attention to politics that the folks here do. So to reach those people you need some simple marketing. It might be nice if they would all study the issues, and discuss, and argue, and ponder, like we do. But that’s not reality. They don’t have to do it, they don’t want to do it and they’re not going to do it.
But, we still need them to vote for us, and not the stinking dems, so we need to appeal to them, in all senses of that word.
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.