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 ...
I’ll write in Newt.
Wow.
Someone on another thread said he’d never seen anyone post on FR that they planned to pull the lever for Barack Hussein Obama.
I noted that I hadn’t seen many such posts, but I had seen at least two.
Make that three now.
Curious times at FR.
I see you around all the time but once you’ve posted there’s nothing left to say! LOL
Exactly. Remember, he made excuses for the liberals he appointed as governor because there was a liberal majority in Mass. What's the dif when he's president then?
I have seen headlines talking about a Spanish company counting our votes but that's about all I know. Don't even know if that's true. Wouldn't surprise me at this point.
Well, yes it would have been better if the GOP had been able to find a reasonable candidate who could contest Obama, but since they didn't all we're left with is hoping that all those four hang tough - unless you expect president etch-a-sketch to not stab us all in the back with an O'Connor.
I could never bring myself to pull the lever for BamBam Barack but I do think we’ll be better off with gridlock and letting Obama burn out his 8 years than with Romney having another moderate Republican presidency that frustrates the base and leads to a full Democrat takeover, a la 1992 and 2006-2008. Obama’s hands are pretty well tied from doing what he wants to do with a bad economy and a Republican Congress. Chances are Romney would unwittingly set up a much more powerful liberal majority for 2016 if he wins, which would be very dangerous.
Have you been paying attention lately? The breaucracy has been running wild with the 'Executive Orders', and the 'Secretary May Decide' decisions.
Another four years of this crap, and we're cooked.
Plus, in 2010 Obama was dealt a terrible slap in the face. He has ignored the will of the people. It will get worse if he wins again: he will be a lame duck president and can do whatever he wants, especially with executive orders.
A POV-opposite-to-mine ping.
That’s still a far cry from being able to pass Obamacare, cap-and-trade, another stimulus, etc. I’m expecting Obamacare to be overturned so he’ll have that executive power stripped away. If it’s not, I’ll reassess. No one’s saying an Obama presidency for 4 more years would be a pleasant thing. Certainly the EPA won’t get any less onerous. This is about saying the 8-year outlook isn’t good if Romney gets in there no matter what happens. We need structural reforms on entitlements, taxes and the bureaucracy and Romney is a status quo guy who won’t get the job done and might make it worse. We need something to look forward to in 2016 and Romney winning doesn’t make that possible.
That’s what I read
-- Samuel Adams "It does not take a majority to prevail … but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."
Damn Skippy!
Damn Skippy!
And by the way a strong senate helps there too!
It’s sarcasm.
As sickening as it sounds, the best thing that can happen to conservatives in 2012 is that Romney is narrowly defeated by Obama while both the Senate and House go solid Republican.
In that case, I don’t see the Republicans standing up to 0bama any more then than they are doing now. Do you?
I was being sarcastic.
We’re in a hell of a predicament.
It’s sarcasm.
Yes, FRiend, it was.
We’re in one hell of a predicament.
I have seen headlines talking about a Spanish company counting our votes but that’s about all I know. Don’t even know if that’s true. Wouldn’t surprise me at this point.
It wouldn’t surprise me either.
Right now I see no one looking out for the United States.
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.