Romney’s Road to 270 Relies on ‘Hawkeye Granite’ or ‘Southern Sweep’

ABC News ^ | May 10, 2012 | Amy Walter

[JLS]

Did you read my post? I specified specific states. If you think I am wrong, tell me where.

Which state Bush won in either 2000 or 2004 should I have in the tossup column that I don’t or which state Bush won in either 2000 or 2004 should I have in the lean Obama column which I don’t?

[AuH2ORepublican]

I agree with you regarding how OH will be the key to winning the presidency in 2012. If Romney carries it, Obama would have to run the table in NH, IA, CO, NV, NM, WI, MN, PA and MI to get reelected (which won’t happen). And if Obama carries OH, then Romney wouldn’t stand a chance in other blue-collar Great Lakes states such as PA, MI, WI and MN (which are less Republican than OH) and would have to win 4 out of 5 of NH, IA, CO, NV, NM (with one of them being CO, unless Romney also wins the ME-02, in which case he could win with NH, IA, NV and NM).

This is one of the reasons why I think that Romney would be foolish not to select Senator Rob Portman of OH as his runningmate. Portman will help him carry OH and would also help him attract blue-collar voters and motivate Evangelical voters in other key states (Portman is a socially conservative Methodist, and is an expert at communicating with working-class voters due to his work experience and political campaigns).

Romney-Portman could garner 350 electoral votes if the election breaks further away from Obama (which is a real possibility). But, more importantly, Romney-Portman can get 270 electoral votes even if it doesn’t.

[nathanbedford]

Prof. Rasmussen is contrived today to make us all look like geniuses reporting in his daily tracking poll that Romney has for the first time hit the 50% mark leaving Obama down at 43%. This puts Obama in a very bad position indeed.

However, I recall reading somewhere yesterday that Rob Portman does not move the needle at all as a vice presidential choice in Ohio. If he cannot help carry the state the choice would have to move elsewhere. I am sure Romney's internals will tell him the answer to this on a precinct by precinct basis. Likewise I think his polling will do the same respecting Santorum's ability to carry Pennsylvania.

My choices are: 1 Rubio 2 Paul Ryan 3 Portman 4 Santorum-and these selections are made without reference to my ideological preferences which would become far more relevant to this process as and when Romney has a comfortable lead above 50% and would certainly change if numbers showed Romney in trouble in Virginia, for example.

[BillyBoy]

>> I agree with you regarding how OH will be the key to winning the presidency in 2012. This is one of the reasons why I think that Romney would be foolish not to select Senator Rob Portman of OH as his runningmate. Portman will help him carry OH and would also help him attract blue-collar voters and motivate Evangelical voters in other key states <<

I agree it may boil down to Ohio in the end. The pattern over the last couple of decades is whoever wins Ohio wins the Presidency, so it's hard to imagine Obama or Romney winning in the rest of the country without taking Ohio.

Portman is an acceptable running mate and I agree from a geographic standpoint it's a good choice, the only issue I have with a Romney-Portman ticket is that it's bland as hell. Take away his Mormonism and Romney's life story is not that interesting, and Portman may ease conservative's concerns but in the end, he's boring and won't take the luster off Obama's "historic" Presidency. The media will paint the GOP ticket as two old guard establishment WASPs, even though Romney is a Mormon (just as claimed the traditional Catholic Rick Santorum was the "evangelical" candidate)

The other issue is Portman is brand new to the Senate, a freshman Senator with less than 2 years under his belt (and this is his first time holding statewide office), so I'm not sure his pull in the state is strong enough to ensure his candidacy would move the state in the GOP column. Barack Obama is going to run a much more aggressive campaign than Lee Fisher did. It's a good idea to pick a running mate from a "must win" swing state, but I'd prefer one who a powerhouse figure in the state and beloved among voters.

[AuH2ORepublican]

What you read was a Quinnipiac registered-voter poll of OH that showed Obama carrying the state even if Portman was Romney’s runningmate. I think that Portman’s influence in carrying OH would become apparent as he campaigned around the state (it wouldn’t be an automatic thing), and, in any event, if Romney can’t carry OH with Portman, he sure as hell won’t with Rubio, and writing off OH is absolutely out of the question if Romney wants to reach 270.

I like Rubio, Ryan and Santorum, and with a different presidential candidate, I would perhaps prefer them as the VP nominee (heck, I backed Santorum for president from before Iowa until he dropped out). But I think that Romney needs to pick a Protestant (Rubio, Ryan and Santorum are Catholic), and he really needs to win OH, so I think it’s got to be Portman.

[LS]

No, no, no on Rubio. I love the guy but we need every CONSERVATIVE we can get in the senate. Ryan, better, but do you really want to consign such a talented guy to a meaningless office? Go with Jan Brewer-—popular, not really that conservative (replace her as gov with someone who is), and a woman.

[Salamander]

Wow....surrealistic, man.

[Salamander]

As long as they vote against him, I don’t care if they’re outhouse rat crazy.

:)

[central_va]

As long as they vote against him, I don’t care if they’re outhouse rat crazy.

Unfortunately they wont.

[SamAdams76]

Well I see the MSM has already gone after Romney’s high school days. What’s next? Spitball fights from third grade?

[Little Ray]

May the Lord make it so.

But I’m not nearly that optimistic. I see a lot of Conservatives being completely uninspired by Romney the GOP, and unwilling to just vote against Obama.

For which I can not really blame them. Romney is about an inspiring as block of raw tofu.

[nathanbedford]

I confess that I had not considered the religious issue in the selection of Romney's vice presidential running mate. Will it be necessary to balance the uneasiness many evangelicals feel about him because of his Mormonism?

There are some countervailing considerations to your very good point. The evangelicals who might seriously object to Romney because he is a Mormon are located in safe states anyway. Second, the Catholics are preponderant in the rust belt states running West from Pennsylvania through Iowa and to a lesser degree into Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota. It might be that the Catholics in these battleground states will have more of a tipping effect than southern evangelicals in safe states. For the record, I'm not asserting that Iowa predominates with Catholics.

Finally, Catholics in the Southwest might just vote that way if Rubio were the choice not just because he is Hispanic but because he is Catholic.

As the polls move more and more to Romney's favor as I expect they will, we will have much more freedom to support a running mate on ideological rather than vote gaining grounds. Yes, the vice presidency is on paper an office without any power except to break a Senate tie. Some of the most powerful men in American political history have been neutered by the office, witness Lyndon Johnson. Yet other men like Dick Cheney, have infused the office with tremendous power by virtue of their personality and the trust and confidence reposed in Cheney by President Bush. Therefore, the right man in the right relationship with Pres. Romney could exercise decisive influence for conservatism.

We must not forget that, although the office carries with it virtually no power, it is a constitutional office meaning that the Vice President is literally independent of the president, does not serve at his pleasure, and cannot be fired. So it is quite conceivable that a Vice President could turn maverick and be terribly disruptive to the smooth running of any administration. That is why Romney could never pick a Newt Gingrich as his running mate. Romney will be looking for a team player not a bombthrower. Yet, the role of the Vice President who will be selected for his team loyalty must also be the bad cop on the campaign trail to Romney's good cop. Nixon played this role to perfection. Romney will be looking for a bombthrower on the campaign trail and a team player inside the White House.

If it looks like Romney is likely to win by the time of the announcement of the running mate, I would prefer a conservative who will go rogue if he thinks his oath to the Constitution demands it rather than a political choice who will carry a critical state or two. I am not above confessing that I agree with John Kennedy said, "first you gotta win" and at no time in my lifetime has that aphorism been more relevant than today. But if we are confident of the win, I want a man who we can be sure will regard the Constitution as superior to his duty of loyalty to his boss rather than a man who will be surefooted on the campaign trail.

A conservative vice presidential nominee will balance the ticket but will he balance the presidency? That depends almost entirely on the moral character of the man.

[nathanbedford]

please see my reply #52 also intended for you.

[AuH2ORepublican]

I agree that the role a VP will play in an administration will depend on the VP and, more importantly, on the president. Each of Mondale, Bush, Quayle, Gore and Cheney was considered by many to be “the most powerful VP ever” because the president gave them so much leeway for certain projects (and in Cheney’s case, because the president so valued his advice); we don’t hear that about Biden, though. So Romney picking a conservative runningmate would only make his administration more conservative if the VP and especially Romney want the VP to have an outsized role.

As for the importance of Romney picking a Protestant runningmate as opposed to a Catholic, I think that you underestimate the prevalence of Evangelical Protestants in many swing states. Evangelicals are a major presence in North Florida, rural VA and throughout NC, and Romney needs a big turnout among Evangelicals if he wants to carry the three must-win swing states of FL, VA and NC. Evangelicals are also a fairly large part of the electorate in OH and MI (but a bit less in PA), so failing to energize those voters would hurt Romney even in the Rust Belt. And, of course, Evangelical voters are a force in IA and CO, two swing states that could put Romney over the top.

Since its first presidential ticket in 1856, the GOP had two Protestants every time but one (1964, when the VP nominee was Catholic). It has never been an impediment for Catholics to vote Republican. The problem here is that Romney has both the problem of his past (and many fear, present) liberalism and the problem that he is a Mormon, so is not deemed to be a true Christian by many Protestant sects. (Or by the Roman Catholic Church, for that matter, but it isn’t as big a deal for Catholics.) So it would behoove Romney to pick a Protestant runningmate, with an Evangelical being even better. A Methodist such as Rob Portman would “hit the sweet spot,” since Evangelicals would recognize him as “one of them” while other Preotestants and Carholics would be perfectly comfortable with him. Throw in the fact that he’s from Ohio and is popular among blue-collar voters, plus his impressive résumé in both Congress and in the federal Executive Branch (two things missing from Romney’s résumé), and Portman is the ideal choice.

2012 should have been the year of the Catholic VP Republican, with Marco Rubio, Bob McDonnell, Susana Martinez, Paul Ryan, Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie, Pat Toomey, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Jeb Bush and Kelly Ayotte all making interesting VP picks for a Protestant presidential nominee. But we won’t have a Protestant heading our ticket, and I don’t think we can take the chance of not nominating a Protestant as VP.

[LS]

The more conservative, the better, only NOT a SENATOR. We have to keep conservative senators in place!!

[Impy]

You leaving VA in Osama’s column? Doubt it.

If Osama wins it’s narrowly.

[Impy]

You seem to have a lot of liberal friends! ;d

Romney will have to blow it. He could certainly do that, you can’t not worry, but if he doesn’t he’ll win.

Basically he is Tom Dewey. It will be either Dewey redux or Dewey’s revenge.

As for the Bush states, prospects in NM don’t seem too good. But he has a good chance to win the rest of the them and NH which was a Bush state in 2000.

[Impy]

VP is meaningless in office but your chances of being President go way way up. If Romney wins the VP is a frontrunner for 2020 if they’re interested.

[RC one]

I’m giving Mitt Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and NC plus the safe states and he still loses when obama takes Pennsylvania, WV, Colorado, NM, NV, Wisconsin and the rest of the safe dem states. the thing is though, I’m not convinced that Romney will take Ohio. The point is, he has a very difficult fight ahead and a landslide seems pretty unlikely for either candidate.

[Impy]

“I’m giving Mitt Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and NC plus the safe states”

Then your math is wrong or you miscounted some state

http://uselectionatlas.org/TOOLS/evcalc.php

There’s a good tool

He’s certain the win the McCain states (and all votes from Nebraska which split last time) plus Indiana and I don’t see how Obama could win NC again either. That leaves the big three of Florida, Virginia, and Ohio. All must wins.

Those would make it 266 (not 251), 1 small state short of victory. New Hampshire, Iowa, Colorado. New Hampshire is his home state since he left office, went huge Republican in 2010 and is very White, I think he wins it(and VA and Florida). So if wins Ohio I think he wins.