Posted on 04/30/2012 9:13:27 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
Bush’s two successful races, and the map on which he built them, are quite instructive when trying to understand Romney’s narrow margin for error this fall.
In 2000, Bush won 271 electoral votes — one more than he needed to claim the presidency. In eking out that victory, Bush not only carried the South and Plains states with a near sweep but also claimed wins in swing states such as Nevada, Colorado, Missouri and the major electoral-vote prizes of Ohio and Florida.
If Romney was able to duplicate Bush’s 2000 map, he would take 285 electoral votes — thanks to redistricting gains over the past decade.
But to do so, Romney would need not only to win the five swing states mentioned above — with the exception of Missouri, all of them are considered tossups (at worst) for the president at the moment — but also hang on to states such as North Carolina and Virginia where Bush cruised 12 years ago. (Obama carried both states in
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Now, the good(ish) news for Romney is that if he has a low ceiling, he also has a relatively high floor.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) won 173 electoral votes in 2008. If Romney carried those same 22 states under the 2012 map, he would win 180 electoral votes.
Add Indiana, which McCain lost but which will almost certainly go for Romney in 2012, and the former Massachusetts governor’s electoral floor sits at 191.
Given the narrowness of his electoral map window, the key for Romney this fall is to win in places that Bush, McCain and other Republican nominees over the past two decades have struggled to make inroads. No Republican has carried Pennsylvania (20 electoral votes), Michigan (16) or Wisconsin (10) in any of the past five elections, for example.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
As a Virginia (swing state) voter, why should I not put him in power to replace Obama? I agree there are potential bad outcomes trading a socialist for a liberal. But to me that is a net gain. You have other ideas why Romney is worse but won't itemize them.
You forgot to mention one must-win state for Romney (FL) and one competitive state that could put Romney over the top (CO).
The McCain states + the Omaha CD + IN + NC + VA + FL + OH = 266. If Romney wins those states, he needs just one more state for 270, even if it’s as small as NH (4 EVs). NV, IA or CO would also do the trick. But if Romney can’t win OH, he’s unlikely to win PA or MI, either, and would be unlikely to get to 270.
And being a PA resident, I don't see how Romney wins here. You win statewide as a pubbie in PA by starting out as being demonstrably pro-life and pro-gun. False-front Dem groups can run ads showing Romney to be neither.
Romney can try to run away from his history. But the Dems won't let him.
Bullcrap and you know it. The GOP-E has chosen a far-left RINO for the nominee. And allowed Romney to destroy all conservative alternatives. They would rather lose with the RINO than win with a conservative. The fault is not that of individual FReepers looking at what Romney and the GOP-E has wrought. The fault is that of the pinheads who brought the party to this morass in the first place.
If you aren't going to vote for Romney, I would look at not voting for president or voting third-party. Obama IS even worse than Romney (although both suck). Don't reward either major party with your vote for putting up these two lemons this cycle.
Constitution party has the only prolife candidate, so they’ll earn my vote for the presidency.
Downballot, I’ll vote with the rest of the republican ticket. Gridlock is the best we can do at this point.
As opposed to Ocare, which got passed while the democrats had supermajorities? I’ll take EOs which get rescinded over O-care anyday.
Hrm? I didn’t say anything about Christie. My issue with Christie is that he’s soft on guns and babies.
He’s good for New Jersey, but that’s not exactly saying much.
How is Christie prolife? I’ve not seen anything to indicate such.
“I’ll take EOs which get rescinded over O-care anyday.”
Have any of Obama’s been rescinded since the Dems lost the House? Can you deal with them for four more years?
If people think this guy hates America now, wait until he’s not running for re-election.
“Have any of Obama’s been rescinded since the Dems lost the House? Can you deal with them for four more years?
If people think this guy hates America now, wait until he’s not running for re-election.”
Over Slick Williard and the disaster he left in MA? I’ll take enemy fire over friendly fire anyday.
Christie has regularly stated he is pro-life, and has spoken at pro-life rallies; it isn’t new to him. I’m not sure why people think he’s pro-abortion.
As far as guns go, I’m not aware of him targeting guns while in office.
You are right that his solutions for NJ, while effective, probably don’t mean much to people in other parts of the country. As I’ve said in other posts, he has the right enemies.
“Over Slick Williard and the disaster he left in MA? I’ll take enemy fire over friendly fire anyday.”
Maybe you’ll get your wish; I don’t remember this level of revulsion directed at McCain, and I don’t see much difference between them. McCain squandered his opportunity (and four years of our lives), Romney has already attacked Obama more than McCain did throughout his whole campaign.
McCain was prolife and supported traditional marriage. Slick Williard has all of his faults, lik reaching around the aisle, and none of his conservative bona fides.
I supported McCain, but I’m not going along with Romney. If the GOP wants my support, nominate someone who believes what I do.
http://azpundit.com/the-problem-with-chris-christie-for-2012/
Pretty good article, and Ann Coulter’s also been supporting Romney. Ann’s endorsement meant something before, but she’s really been drifting this last while.
As for his prolife credentials:
http://familypolicy.net/us/?p=9975
He supports abortion in the case of rape, + incest.
As I said, soft on guns and soft on babies. He’s good for New Jersey, but not much else.
He does support traditional marraige, which makes him better than Mitt though.
“He supports abortion in the case of rape, + incest.”
By that definition 90% of the US is pro-abortion; he doesn’t advocate for abortion. When you look at the forces aligned against him, he’s doing something right. Maybe he is more of a TEA Party candidate than a social conservative (the TEA Party avoids social issues), but for NJ and other high tax, big government states he has answers. I’d rather see him in office than watch the GOP constantly just write off those types of states.
What a difference 18 months can make.
Back in November, 2010 Pennsylvania had decidedly turned Republican. Not only did we win the Governor’s race and send Pat Toomey to the Senate, but we in fact helped win the House by electing 5 more Republicans than DemonRats. Then in addition, we took control of both the State House and Senate as well.
Back then, I said that come 2012, Pennsylvania would turn “GOP RED” for the first time since 1988.
Now, I’m not so sure.
The real problem we face is if we allow Romney a win, from here on out, every Lib who wants to be President will change affiliation, and offer themselevs as a Republican Candidate. Clearly, Bloomberg will become the future standard of GOP candidate. The Establishment, which only wants to win, will embrace every one of them, just assuming the hard-line Conservatives will always vote for the R. The party will quickly become a Conservative Party in name only. Already, you could make a case that it is.
Truth is, if we all had voted for Obama last time around, and McCain got only 15 Electoral votes, the Elites would have gotten the message, and we likely wouldn’t have Romney. And nothing would have been different practically, beyond our stongly sent message.
I can understand how many people feel a vote for Obama is justified, and I almost agree with them. If it weren’t for the Supreme Court, I’d be fully on board myself.
“By that definition 90% of the US is pro-abortion”
22 percent believe that it should be illegal in all cases, according to Gallup. That’s about half the GOP. Christie’s on the wrong side of the GOP line here.
“When you look at the forces aligned against him”
Fiscally, he’s solid. Socially, he’s soft on abortion and soft on the second amendment. These are issues with him running a national campaign. We can do better than Christie.
“Maybe he is more of a TEA Party candidate than a social conservative (the TEA Party avoids social issues).”
Not if he supports gun control. 80 percent of tea party folks are in opposition to him. 60 percent of tea party folks also believe that abortion should be illegal.
He’s a GOP mainstream candidate. He’s also weak on immigration.
So, tell me, exactly, what do we (I) do instead?
A more conservative segment of the population carried the day in 2010.
Now we`ll have the whole gaggle that comprises the American electorate out there this time.. and the anti-Obama enthusiasm isn`t nearly as intense as it was in 2010.
That is why we must focus on congress. We all look for impeachment proceedings to emergy, but they won’t. Not unless we get a congress with some steel balls. And that also means changing the ‘core’ of the Republican elite, which we have failed to accomplish.
We’re cooked no matter what. If Romney wins, his job will only be to make socialism more palatable to the conservative base. Where 0bama is the hard push, Romeny is the velvet glove.
Play this silly little game and answer your own question:
Lucifer or Baal for President
Which do you choose and what do you do?
The Convention has yet to occur ... and Romney is yet to be selected ... we need a Rocky Road Pinochet ... not artificially flavored Vanilla Tasty Freeze in a crappy cone.
Quandary time. I doubt even a Republican Congress could control a 2d term Obama ... the question remains, "Could they swing Romney to starboard."
Now it appears that the late Richard M. Nixon erred again in 1960, when he declined to challenge voter fraud in IL, MO, and TX, even though Maurice Stans raised the funds for a challenge. Nixon, another presidential failure, wanted to avoid the “sore loser” tag so he could run and win in 1968.
The elites haven’t entirely nominated Ropmney: it’s the uninformed primary voters who have done this.
Many “pro-life” people for years have been voting for abortion candidates for the state legislature, U.S. House, U.S. Senate, and governor, even as the GOP presidential nominees bore nominal “pro-life” tags. They still are voting for abortion candidates; many are too uninformed to know the difference.
Sometimes I still have trouble believing where we are. Last summer, I didn't think Romney would be a threat at ALL. I figured, after the elections of 2010, a joker like him would be the last person we'd have to worry about.
Just WTH....
Interesting response.
Yes, but these laws have actually passed and will most likely still be on the books come November. Democrats are already crying about these laws hurting their "get out the vote (fraud)" efforts.
Continue to bring as much focus as I can on the non-negotiable, indispensable first principles of the republic.
Try to convince those who call themselves conservatives that if they want the republic to survive they MUST NOT compromise those non-negotiable principles for anyone or for any politically expedient reasons.
Gather together all of those who have made such a commitment to core American principle into a cogent, coherent, permanent, potent political force for good.
Continue to fight on every front, with every resource we have, without wavering, until we win or God takes us home.
-- Winston Churchill"Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."
Have you been paying attention lately? The breaucracy has been running wild with the 'Executive Orders', and the 'As The Secretary May Direct' decisions.
Another four years of this crap, and we're cooked.
Costing us dearly how? And you think Obama's been holding back? He's tried to do 100% of what he wants to do. The only thing stopping him from doing more is the gridlock. What would be the point of holding back in his first term when he doesn't know if he'll get a second term? His actions show he's trying to do everything he can while he has power. But it isn't possible with the post-2010 gridlock and the bad economy dogging him. Something like cap-and-trade could have been passed if the economy was good, but not now.
Each person has to make his own decision. I, for one, am holding my nose and supporting Romney, not because he’s “the lesser of two evils,” but as a way of *limiting evil* (i.e., defeating Obama and all the evil he would impose upon us). Father Frank Pavone analyzed the distinction here, in the context of the right to life: http://www.priestsforlife.org/vote/votingwithclearconscience.htm#choosing
I was being sarcastic. Look at my posting history.
FUBO!!!
I was being sarcastic. I will vote for Romney as I grit my teeth.
Thanks, dixiechick
Yeah, but since you didn't use a sarcasm tag, that post will get referenced again and again as proof that FReepers are supporting Obama.
Yeah, but since you didn’t use a sarcasm tag, that post will get referenced again and again as proof that FReepers are supporting Obama.
I will not be dictated to as to who I vote for. I will vote for Romney with gritted teeth.
Ah, so you'll make a misleading post to make it seem like the Romney critics are actually Obama voters.
I will not be dictated to as to who I vote for. I will vote for Romney with gritted teeth.
Well, do so honestly.
An extreme radical like Van Jones or Eric Holder would never get through the confirmation process - even the weak-kneed Republicans (and moderate Democrats) would fight that. However, in all likelihood, the weak-kneed Republicans won't fight a nominee of the President of their party and the Democrats will fall in line since they are getting someone with a similar ideology. With either Romney or Obama will probably get a Kagan or Sotomayor.
We need to pray that the four conservatives (and Kennedy) on the court stay healthy until the next bleak four-year period ends. The problem is that if Romney wins, he'll probably run for a second term (effectively freezing out a conservative alternative), so the bleak period will last for eight years (either eight years of Romney or four years of Romney followed by four years of the new Democrat President).
Oh, but they were informed. They were informed by Romney's character assassination campaign ads. They were informed by the MSM of the phony scandals against his opponents. They were informed by GOP-elite ass kissers like Rove, Coulter and Hannity that Romney was the one and the others were scandal-ridden.
They were informed.
I am hoping Romney will continue to be a “flexible” politician. In Massachusetts he was wearing the liberal jacket. I would not be surprised if he dons the “right centrist” jacket if elected president. He can sense where the wind is blowing. If he turns to be a core conviction liberal, we are in trouble. I am hoping he will continue his reputation as a flip-flopping flexible politician and turn rightwards.
I still stand by my prediction that Obama will get blown out; he's a failure and he and his voters know it.
Romney wins easily with over 300 EV’s. The best Romney has going for him is that Obama is the worst POTUS in American history, period.
See his later posts on this thread. He wasn't being truthful.
Perhaps. Personally, I think that Romney, if he wins the election, will go with his instincts for statist solutions and actually wants some conflict with conservatives so he can posture himself as the reasonable moderate who is unafraid to anger the extremist conservatives. Line up the RINOs and Democrats and he doesn't need conservatives.
The Romney family has been fighting conservatism since the days of Goldwater. I doubt it will change in the near future.
In the long run, if you see Obama win re-election, you will have more liberal entitlement programs, more disability/welfare, more of everything the liberal agenda entails. The paradigm will shift yet again, and socialism will become the center. In 1992, the whole “Dont Ask Dont Tell” policy was considered a compromise, now it is considered an out of mainstream far right position. We lost by losing, which is always what happens.
It is crazy to me that you muster more antipathy toward Romney for what you think he might do on Day 1, then what Obama HAS done on Day 1. You think you are going to get Sarah Palin or John Bolton in 2016 if Romney loses? Nope, you are going to get Michael Bloomberg if Romney loses. Both parties always move to the center following a loss.
There is no re-do, there is no punishment to those who nominate the candidate you didn’t prefer. They most certainly will not “learn their lesson” if you support Obama for spite. They will become apathetic and move more to the left. If you want instead to move the country to its roots on the right, you need to make winning a habit.
I agree.
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.