Skip to comments.Mitt Romney’s road to presidency this fall looks narrow on electoral map
Posted on 04/30/2012 9:13:27 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
Bushs two successful races, and the map on which he built them, are quite instructive when trying to understand Romneys 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 Bushs 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 governors 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 do my best for the younger generation by doing the right thing. No vote for a lying liberal scumbag.
“No way. You dont win by losing, you win by winning. If Romney lost (he is going to win thankfully), you could expect the next nominee to be Chris Christie, who is far more to the left. Neither party goes more to its flank when it loses, that is just wacky.”
If Romney wins, you’ll never see another prolife nominee for either party ever again.
I’m not willing to concede that 30 percent, which includes selling out unborn children and socialised health care. Bottom line.
Not now, not ever.
You mean Santorum, or Paul?
We haven’t had our primary yet.
Newt is withdrawing from the race.
( No, he hasn’t personally told me so)
Well, he didn't get to where he is - he is MANY voters ideal. He and this election is their concern now - I/others did all we could to get barry out with supporting and voting for Newt. I thought of my family with a very careful selection of my candidate and they did the same.
He has me, he is suspending it/not withdrawing and may make a personal announcement today.
And the younger generation will see how MANY did the wrong thing - and say in their face one day - 'What were you thinking'?
No vote for a lying liberal scumbag.
Exactly. NEVER happen except, of course, if I hated G*d, hated my family and hated my country - I'd vote for the POS con artist baby killer pro homo candidate BISHOP of a Cult Romney.
I find it rather entertaining that PA, WI and MI are often referred to as “swing” states. Where exactly is the “swing” in being bolted to the democrat column in every Presidential contest since 1988?
What’s your plan?
What is the consequence of a Bishop of a cult? I have asked this a couple of times but got no answer. Why should we care if a Mormon becomes President? I want specific answers in term of future policies even if they are speculative. If it’s just that the cult gets undo legitimacy, I really don’t care.
Those who don't know, don't care and neither do they care to know.
“but I do think well be better off with gridlock”
This “gridlock” is costing us dearly, and the executive orders will come flying out even faster when the Kenyan Pirate doesn’t have to win re-election.
“Its not going to be close. Obama is going to lose big.”
From everything I see, I have to believe that is the case. Nobody makes a compelling case for Obama to even carry Illinois; Americans have been in a rage as our way of life has crumbled, and they get few chances to fight back. As Al Gore found out the hard way, the ballot box is the best one (and he took BJ Clinton’s beating for him). Every person who is disgusted by perverts in the military, our affirmative action president telling us what temperature we may heat our homes at (while his fat-assed wife tells us what to eat), etc. who has bottled this up at work and in public is going to have a chance to send him packing, and they will. Those that aren’t personally sickened by this whole family (yes, I’m including the daughter that wore a peace-sign T-shirt while her father was C-in-C of our military personnel dying overseas) can look at our economy (inflation - especially gasoline & groceries, long-term unemployment - and the low-paying jobs that are being posed as the solution, etc.) and vote based on that.
Few people (public employees being the exception) believe anything about Obama anymore; his minstrels shows with Hollywood’s un-American elite (those responsible for the bread-and-circuses) show just how bad the disconnect has become.
“you could expect the next nominee to be Chris Christie, who is far more to the left.”
Whatever is spouted on FR about Chris Christie, he is hardly a leftist; while people may take a few isolated cases to work the guy over, the fact is that his tax-cutting policies and pro-life stance are exceptional for a northeastern Republican (Republicans Christine Whitman, Rudy Giuliani, Michael Bloomberg - all hollow people - being more the norm for our Republicans up here). People won’t give him credit for taking on teachers’ unions when few do, cutting the size of our government (our municipalities have laid off thousands due to Christie’s policies at the state level, where much of the funding had previously originated), and basically trying to make NJ a state where American taxpayers can stand and fight rather than flee as they’ve been forced to in California.
Christie’s election in 2009 (coupled with statewide Dem losses in VA and MA, all three of which had gone for Obama one year earlier) was a harbinger of how the pendulum had swung against Obama, and gave a good preview of how badly the mid-terms would go for Obama in 2010.
To any who think Christie is anything but a conservative, I would only say: look at his enemies. He has all the right people opposed to him.
“My stomach is having a hard time with acceptance phase of our choices..but there it is.”
I hear you; I wasn’t thrilled about McCain either, but what was the choice? Unfortunately a lot of people felt McCain wasn’t worth supporting, and look how far we’ve fallen since. I don’t like Romney, but the alternative is unthinkable.
“The polls showed Carter with a landslide at this point.
Polls this far out are worth spit. The conventions have not even occured yet. What does matter is POTUS approval rating and economic perceptions.”
You’re right; the only polls we have to go on right now that aren’t being manipulated by the masters of our media are the elections subsequent to Obama’s election, and they don’t hold out much promise for him. In fact, they would seem to indicate he would have lost if he ran for re-election in 2009.
I don’t buy that. What’s the big secret?
Romney cannot win, nor will Team Romney let
Romney destroyed Gov. Palin in 2008 for Obama
through surrogates - including Soros (Romney’s partner)
Now Romney destroyed EVERY SINGLE conservative
NOT GONNA VOTE FOR BISHOP BACKSTABBERER
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.