Skip to comments.Romney’s Road to 270 Relies on ‘Hawkeye Granite’ or ‘Southern Sweep’
Posted on 05/10/2012 9:29:34 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
click here to read article
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.
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.
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.
The more conservative, the better, only NOT a SENATOR. We have to keep conservative senators in place!!
You leaving VA in Osama’s column? Doubt it.
If Osama wins it’s narrowly.
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.
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.
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.
“Im giving Mitt Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and NC plus the safe states”
Then your math is wrong or you miscounted some state
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.
No. Those would leave him at exactly 270. What the heck numbers are you looking at? Use that link I posted maybe you are looking the electoral votes from before the new census.
to make it worse, he needs to flip a safe state.
I have no idea what state you could be referring to. I laid out the numbers for you. The "safe" Obama states result in about 200 votes about the same as the states I think are certain to go for Romney (206).
I also don't understand why you are fixating on the number of states he needs to "flip" either. Bush needed to flip a lot of states to win in 2000. Obama needed to flip 1 and did much better than that. Things change, this is not 2008 when Obama won because Bush and the GOP were as popular as dirt. Romney is tied or slightly ahead in credible polls. You could better compare this election to 2004.
Obama could win, especially if Romney screws up but I think his ceiling is lower, ie if someone pulls out to a decent lead it won't be Obama. If he wins it's narrowly. My own prediction is a narrow win for Romney.
another 3rd shifter I see. First of all, national polls don’t matter, they never do. All that matters to Mitt Romney is “flipping” enough previously blue battleground states and/or other previously blue states and, as I said, that means he has to flip Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Indiana, NH, and one other previously blue state. failing to flip the “one other previously blue state” puts him at 265 EVs to Obama’s 273. So, I am sure he’ll grab a few of those states but I don’t believe the demographics are sufficiently in his favor to flip ALL of them.
First of all, national polls dont matter, they never do.
State polls in the swing states matter more but still it's retarded to pretend national polls mean nothing. If Romney is polling ahead nationally it's not plausible that he'd lose states that are more Republican than the country. That alone places him on the cusp of victory. If you win the popular vote by more than 1% the chances you'll lose the electoral college is slim.
that means he has to flip Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Indiana, NH, and one other previously blue state.
For the THIRD TIME that collection of states results in exactly 270, learn to count my friend. How many votes do you have those adding up to because I'm telling you the correct number is 270. Even if he needed 2 more states which he wouldn't because that collection of states results in exactly 270 I think he'll get Iowa and Colorado is 50/50. And there are several other states Obama won in play.
And you are making it sound like Romney is starting from where McCain did an has to make up that ground somehow. If so where have you been the past 4 years? Obama was on a high in 2008, he's come back to Earth. He's not gonna get that same high turnout with Blacks or White college idiots and he's not gonna do as well with independents.
Also this isn't a video game where Romney is expending bullets to "flip states" one at a time and he's gonna run out of ammo before he can get the last one or something like that. Your characterization of the race is very bizarre to me, forgive me for not quite understanding.
Every state is on a pendulum and that pendulum has swung further to the Republican side than it was in 2008.
No. It would add up to 264 under the previous allocation (not 265) but it adds up to 270 now because we had a census and the number of votes each state gets has changed, this occurs every 10 years.
Of this I'm 100% certain. I have no idea how you are doing your counting but it's wrong, you are giving Obama 5 phantom votes.
Please use that link and see for yourself so we can stop arguing about your incorrect math on top of more important things.
He also has to win all of Nebraska's EVs which McCain failed to do btw.
Please, that 1 vote is the surest gain of all. Obama won the Omaha congressional district by a hair after trying hard to do so. In a fantasy world where he is more popular than last time maybe he wins it again, in the real world where he is less popular he has 0 chance of winning it and would be a fool to waste a dime trying.
You are untitled to your view that Romney has "long odds" but most serious analysts would disagree. Only people saying it will be an easy Obama win are democrat shills and people who think Romney is worse than Obama and thus want Romney to lose. Neither of them live in the real world in terms of correctly evaluating the race. Honestly saying a guy tied or AHEAD in the national polls has "long odds" is just completely absurd. He has even odds at worst as of today. The election isn't today but that's where it stands now.
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.