Carrying the Romney states plus FL, OH and PA (without VA or any of the other swing states you mentioned) would be enough to get to 270 electoral votes (273 to be precise) and, in fact, had Romney done a bit better with working-class white Anglos he would have been elected with precisely those states and no othes. But only because PA’s Republican legislature did not switch from winner-takes-all to a CD method of allocation of EVs (like what ME and NE have); if PA gave each nominee 1 EV for every CD carried plus 1 EV to the stateside winner and 1 EV for the candidate with the most CDs carried (a tweak on the method used in ME and NE that would be advatageous to us in states in which we drew the CDs but the RATs usually carry statewide in presidential elections), Romney would have fallen short at 268 EVs (or 267 if his 0.1% victory in PA -08 was reversed in a recount). As I warned when many FReepers were saying that it was a no-brainer for the PA GOP to change its EV allocation method given how RATs tend to win statewide because of the Philly vote, it is perilous for PA (or any other state) to act alone on these matters, because it could have unintended consequences.
What I did support, and still do, is for a critical mass of states to change their EV allocation method simultaneously so that the GOP nominee gets a near-lock in the electoral College even if he does no better nationwide or state-by-state than Romney did. The bare minimum of states that we need to make the change (allocating 1 EV per CD carried plus 1 EV to the candidate with the most CDs carried and 1 EV for the statewide winner) to make it worthwhile is OH, PA, MI, WI, VA and FL, Had those states made the change for 2012, and assuming no change in the vote total (which is speculative, given that Obama’s team would change its turnout operations iand ad placements if those states weren’t winner-takes-all), then Romney would have been elected with 273 EVs (with only one of his EVs—the aforementioned PA-08—being a victory of less than 1%, making 272 the lowest number of EVs he would have had following any recounts). And if we could get a few additional states adopt such change (say, MN and NV), then NC could adopt the CD allocation method as well and the GOP presidential nominee would have a near-lock on 270 even if the RATs stole NC statewide.
Of course, not all of those states have full Republican control anymore, given that VA elected a RAT governor in 2013 (and RINOs prevented the state legislature from moving such a bill along when the party did have full control), so we won’t be able to adopt it for 2016. And to the extent that the recent redistricting cases result in map modifications where RAT CDs are “unpacked,” it may reduce the number of CDs that the GOP presidential nominee will be expected to carry (although if SCOTUS rules in favor of the AZ legislature and strikes down voter-mandated redistricting commissions with no state legislative control, it may lead to FL being able to ignore that “fair districts” state constitutional amendment and draw a couple of additional GOP CDs). But this idea definitely is something that we should keep alive and be able to move quickly upon when the time is right.
I am adding to your theory.
Argument:
1. PA has shifted since 2008, somewhat permanently.
2. Perhaps it is demographic and/or related to coal.
3. This now makes PA a swing state and possibly decisive.
4. That allows us to move VA from a given GOP state, to a swing state.
I don’t know. It could be wishful thinking, but it is certainly above my current pay grade.