Why Virgil Goode matters to Mitt Romney's presidential chances

July 14, 2012 | techno

[techno]

The complete Virgil Goode rundown:

The ten most asked questions about Virgil Goode and why he matters:

1) Who is Virgil Goode?

He is a former GOP Congressman from Virginia who was defeated in the 2010 election. He is now the presidential nominee for the Constitution Party, a third party.

2) How long has the Constitution Party been around?

About 20 years.

3) I hear that Virgil Goode is NOT yet on the Virginia presidential ballot. Will he fail to get on the ballot.

To give you some perspective, in 2004 and 2008 the Constitution Party presidential nominee was on the Virginia presidential ballot. As Goode is a resident of Virginia and a former Congressman, do you really think he would not know the ins and outs of getting on the ballot, which requires him to get 10,000 signatures with at least 400 from each congressional district. As of June 6, 2012 via the Martinsville Bulletin, a local newspaper, Goode had already collected 4000 signatures. And the article concluded that the Constitution Party had as of that date already collected enough signatures to be on the ballot in 17 states.

4) Third party presidential candidates don't normally a cause a ripple through the process. What's different about Virgil Goode?

Let's put it this way, if the presidential election were decided by popular vote, Goode wouldn't matter. But presidential elections are decided in the electoral college.

5)What do you mean Techno?

There are certain states which are called battleground or swing states in which either the Democratic presidential nominee could win but by the same token the GOP presidential nominee could prevail as well. There are ten or so states in the 2012 electoral college which could be considered battleground states based on recent presidential elections and current polling. Virginia is one of those states. And it is not out of the ordinary for the winner of a battleground state to win by a margin of less than 2%.

6) So again why is Goode important to Romney's chances to become president?

Because Goode apparently is far more popular in Virginia than any other state. A Public Policy poll (PPP) in May found that Goode would garner 5% of the vote in Virginia in the presidential election against Obama and Romney. And now a couple of days ago, Goode increased his share of the vote to 9% with Obama collected 49% of the vote and Romney 35%. Without Goode in the mix it would be Obama 50% and Romney 42%. And for those not schooled in the electoral college, the winner of the popular vote in the presidential race in Virgina earns Virginia's 13 electoral votes in 2012. And that now appears to be Obama and not Romney.

7) Are you saying Techno that Goode is taking away way more voters away from Romney than he is Obama?

Exactly, that is what I am saying, But I am NOT the only one saying that. Local Virginia pundits are saying that as well. And PPP in its summary of the poll found that too. If you don't believe me, go over to the PPP web site and read it for yourself.

8)Techno, I'm lazy. I don't want to go over to PPP and read their s*it. Could you give me a brief synopsis?

Alright brother and sister. Under the Obama--Romney--Goode scenario in Virginia here is how the vote breaks down in four demographics: very conservative voters, somewhat conservative voters, Republicans and independents:

----------------------OBAMA--------ROMNEY-----GOODE

VERY CONSERVATIVE-------7-----------84----------7

SOMEWHAT CONSERVATIVE---19----------55----------14

REPUBLICANS-------------9-----------78----------9

INDEPENDENTS------------45----------26----------17

It doesn't take a genius to figure out Goode hurts Romney way more than he hurts Obama.

9) But don't third party bids eventually fizzle out?

Yes, that is the rule of thumb nationally. But in Virginia Goode ahs gained 4% in support since May and he's not even on the Virginia ballot yet. Even if he drops back to his previous level of support of 5% that would still be enough to sink Romney's ship in Virginia in a close contest.

10) Techno, could you explain why Virginia is so important?

It comes down to the number of electoral votes (EV) in the electoral college. The general consensus among the folks who do it for a living is that President Obama currently sits at 247 EV when you include all the safe blue states and those states leaning to Obama (likely to win). If Obama wins VA, a battleground state, that takes him to 260 EV and therefore only needs 10 more EV to hit the 270 EV threshold to win re-election. And here are the four swing states which Obama must win these 10 votes again based on a consensus of experts: Iowa (6), NH(4), Nevada (6) and Colorado (9). Obama is currently enjoying a small margin in the polls in every state but Iowa and is running neck and neck with Romney there.

Of course the dynamic of the race could shift in the next three months or so but it appears Obama has the edge in winning Colorado and its 9 EV. If he did that he would reach 269 EV and would only need to win one of the remaining three states to get a second term.

As for Mitt Romney if he loses Virginia, assuming he wins the other huge 4 swing states of Ohio, NC, Indiana and Florida and reaches 253 EV, Romney would be forced to win Colorado to have any chance of winning the presidency in the electoral college. The best he could hope for otherwise is a tie (269-269) in which case the contest goes to the House of Representatives.

One other element to consider: In 2008 President Obama won 1 EV in Nebraska who allots it EV by whoever wins the congressional district. Obama actually won this district (Omaha) by 9.77% which is a pretty hefty margin. If Obama could again win this district and on top of it win Virginia and Colorado that would take him to 270 EV on the button and Romney would be denied regardless of what he did in Iowa, NH and Nevada.

A final note: If Romney can win Virginia with Ohio, NC, Indiana and Florida he would then be at 266 EV. He would then not be forced to win Colorado but would only have to be victorious in Iowa to become the new president.

And that folks is why Team Obama has had many sleepless nights over the past 3 years. Virgil Goode is a godsend for Obama and his team.

[MissouriConservative]

Ah, a single issue voter. Nevermind what I’ve said, you’re one of those types that has to have the perfect candidate. If you were alive in 1776, you would have sided with the British because not every founding father would hold up to your “perfect” test.

Bye.

[JCBreckenridge]

Nonsense.

You’re the type that’s replaced Washington with Benedict Arnold, and expect the rest of us to vote for Benedict Arnold.

I was very happy with Santorum. So where are you getting this nonsense that ‘no one is good enough.

[Hegewisch Dupa]

I love these guys who apparently have the Back to the Future Political almanac so they can chart the entire future, but still can’t figure out how to make money off the book...

[MissouriConservative]

So you were happy with a RINO in Santorum? You’re nothing but a spoiled hypocrite...lol.

[JCBreckenridge]

LOL Santorum is a RINO and Romney is not?

LMFAO.

[Yashcheritsiy]

This is wonderful - but ultimately meaningless, since your "Virgil Goode thinks the welfare state is sacrosanct" talk is not based on reality, but is the result of a liberal application of the patented "Tom Hoefling special interpretation sauce" that you've become famous for over the years.

After all, you're the guy who thinks Michelle Bachmann is a flaming pro-abortionist, so we can see how credible your political impressions really are.

[Yashcheritsiy]

“Nevertheless, my point still stands - anyone who doesn’t want to touch 18.74% of the budget, especially when much of that amounts to spending on wars we shouldn’t even be in and on bases in places we don’t need to be anymore, simply is not serious about balancing the budget or reducing spending.”

Sure, after all the unconstitutional spending is taken out.

No - at the same time as the rest is cut out. Again, you can't say that we're not going to touch 19% of the budget and the largest or second-largest portion (depending, apparently, on how things are accounted by whichever source you're using) and still claim to be serious about fiscal responsibility.

Besides, if we want to be serious about constitutionality, how about we start getting back to the constitutional principle that Congress could only allocate funds for armies (land forces) for specified periods of time and for specific reasons, instead of having a huge standing army consuming resources like crazy? Remember what the founders thought about large standing armies?

If conservatives want to be constitutionalists, then by all means, let's be consistent about it.

[xzins]

Tom Hoefling special interpretation sauce

My sense to date, Yash, is that EV is a sincere actor. I do not think he has the resources or the experience to be the president, and I don't think the Alan Keyes party is of any consequence, although admittedly the Constitution Party is struggling, too, under the constraints imposed by the 2 party bureaucrats to prevent 3rd parties from rising. In any case, EV seems to be trying seriously to advance his candidacy here on the pages of free republic.

So, I take a lot of what he says to be campaign spin, the same as I would with any other candidate.

It's campaign sauce....not to be confused with champagne sauce, wonderful with fish stock.

[MissouriConservative]

Yeah, a RINO. Only a RINO would say this -

"This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone."

Santorum's comments concerning George Zimmerman raise all sorts of red RINO flags.

His support of Arlen Specter - more red RINO flags.

This is written about the RINO -

"In his book he comments, seemingly with a shrug, “Some will reject what I have to say as a kind of ‘Big Government’ conservatism.”

They sure will. A list of the government interventions that Santorum endorses includes national service, promotion of prison ministries, “individual development accounts,” publicly financed trust funds for children, community-investment incentives, strengthened obscenity enforcement, covenant marriage, assorted tax breaks, economic literacy programs in “every school in America” (his italics), and more. Lots more."

LINK

More on the great "conservative" Santorum -

The evidence does show that Santorum was opposed to ethanol before 9/11. Twice, in 1997 and 1998, Santorum voted to end ethanol subsidies. And the evidence also shows that, at times, he was supportive of an ethanol mandate after 9/11. But in 2005, Santorum voted to end the ethanol mandate. If the original flip-flop was a principled stand taken by Santorum because of national security concerns, we’re at a loss to explain this flip-flop-flip-again vote.

In the same “50 Things” campaign brochure, Santorum boasts about sponsoring a bill to regulate “price gouging and unfair pricing by the big oil companies.” This contradicts his opposition to a “windfall profits tax” that Democrats tried to impose on oil companies in 2005. He also voted YES on Sarbanes-Oxley, which was an overreaching bill that tried to tighten accounting regulations following the Enron scandal.

LINK

So don't give me that crap about good ole saint Rick. It's all hogwash. Abortion is the only reason you sided with Santorum....a one trick pony, a single issue voter who is going to try their best to get Obama re-elected.

[JCBreckenridge]

“Again, you can’t say that we’re not going to touch 19% of the budget and the largest or second-largest portion (depending, apparently, on how things are accounted by whichever source you’re using) and still claim to be serious about fiscal responsibility.”

If you gut the other 81 percent of unconstitutional spending, then yes, you are advocating fiscal responsibility. The federal government has the constitutional obligation to protect the nation. Where is the constitutional right to welfare? To social security? Cut those first and then we can talk about cutbacks to the military.

“Congress could only allocate funds for armies (land forces) for specified periods of time and for specific reasons”

And, last I checked, there’s a war going on.

“Remember what the founders thought about large standing armies?”

What do you think George Washignton’s response would have been to 9-11? Oh, wait, we already have that response - “shores of Tripoli”. r

Do you think they would have put up with this half-assed no-effort war? No. They would have fought and fought to win.

If conservatives want to be constitutionalists, then by all means, let’s be consistent about

[JCBreckenridge]

Ahh, I expected you to quote what Santorum said in that one speech.

Yeah, you support abortion, gay marriage, etc. Of course you won’t support Santorum, because Santorum rejects your premise that we can do whatever we want and still exist as a free nation.

[Hegewisch Dupa]

You might really want to re-think how you worded that shores of Tripoli part of your response - just a helpful hint

[MissouriConservative]

So you believe in big government involved in your every day life? If you do, then you’re not a Conservative at all (which I suspected all along).

Santorum is one of those that wants to use big government to further their beliefs. What you dumba**es don’t realize is that when you set that precedent, there comes a day when someone gets elected whose values are not your own...but you can’t complain because they’re only doing what you advocated in the first place.

So I will say it again, I’m was against Santorum exactly for the reason that he wants to tell me what to do just as Obama does.

Now that I know you’re an advocate of big government, I know you’re a loon.

[MissouriConservative]

And I did notice your lack of acknowledgement of the rest of the post. You’re answer shows a lack of honesty...typical RINO tactics.

[JCBreckenridge]

So you admit then that you support abortion and gay marriage?

[JCBreckenridge]

“So I will say it again, I’m was against Santorum exactly for the reason that he wants to tell me what to do just as Obama does.”

Santorum’s speech (the only truly remarkable one this entire campaign), makes several points.

There are certain ideals that must be held by we the people of the United States if they are to be free. Whenever we the people deviate from these principles to pursue libertine ideals, the entire nation as a whole suffers.

Rather than admit that Santorum is right, you’re furiously attacking him for telling you that some choices are wrong. There is a difference between liberty and libertine. The two are not the same. Living your life as you want to live your life without consequences is the most corrosive way you can live. If you do not take responsibility for your own life, then the state steps in to take care of you.

That is the point that Santorum was hammering at- poor ideals leads to poor states. People are poor, because of the choices that they make, and people are wealthy for the same reason. Santorum is arguing that the people who are well off all exhibit the same characteristics, and the peopel who are poor do the same.

You want to be out of poverty - get married at a fairly young age, have kids and stay married. Deviate from this path and you will lead your family into disaster such that the state will have to pick up the pieces.

But, that means saying that some choices are wrong, which you can’t abide. “everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial.”

[MissouriConservative]

Nice try RINO. I support neither but I am not going to force my beliefs on those who do. Just as do not want them forcing their beliefs on me. I have no right to tell other people how to run their lives. My nose does not belong in anyone else’s business but my own. If you want to get an abortion, that’s fine, it’s your life. It’s between you and your maker what you do. If you want to marry a person of the same sex, that’s ok by me. I don’t support it but I’m not going to prevent you from doing what you want with your life.

It’s kind of like the old saying, “I may not agree with what you have to say but I will defend, to the death, your right to say it.”

[trebb]

The "fat is in the fire" because Team Romney including Romney's latest fling, Condi Rice, SUPPORTED OBAMA. Would you support a murderer, too? Would you help a rapist, too? Never forget how we got here, due to TEAM ROMNEY.

You are truly obsessed with Romney - so much that you have been blinded to how bad Obama is. Romney says he thinks Roe Vs. Wade should be overturened. Obama says that babies who survive abortion can be left to die. Yet you call Romney the murderer. There truly are shades of gray and if you put the both of them side by side, Obama has the blackest soul and heart. You bitch that Rice supported Obam yet all your efforts, if they come to fruition, will leave Obam ensconced in the WH for another 4 years and we are truly screwed.

[trebb]

The same morons who Nevilled us by nominating Mitt Romney? You play to win the game, not lose less badly...

OK - how do you predict a win by trashing Romney and leaving Obama in the WH? Don't give me some pipe dreams about absolute control of both Houses of Congress because by the time we ever manage that, it's likely to be too late. What is your end game?

[trebb]

How do you feel about the Lugar defeat in IN? Lugar was a lock to be reelected, which would help the GOP take over the Senate. Instead, during the primaries, a more conservative Rep, Richard Mourdock, was nominated. He will face a much more difficult election. Using your logic, you would have advised the voters to go for Lugar, despite his RINO voting record and the fact he didn't even live in the state anymore. Your "logic" only works if you think Romney and Obama are exactly the same and that Goode or someone else can actually win. As an aside, Lugar has proven to be a sore loser refusing to help Mourdock in his campaign. This is the problem with having politicians who have been feeding at the public trough most of their adult lives. They feel entitled to the position. You should walk the halls of Congress to see the trappings of power and the special interests standing at their door. You criticize Ross Perot, but fail to understand why he had such traction among the voters. Third parties have a positive impact on the system. The two major parties start paying attention to third parties when their ideas gain traction among the public. Usually, the major parties adopt those ideas. Unfortunately, this time, movements like the Tea Party are being demonized instead of being embraced. The GOP does it as its peril. I understood Ross Perot's traction and would have gladly voted for him if he had a snowball's chance of being other than a spoiler. Many voted for Ross and look who we got. You want to do it all over again.

I see the Kool Aid is flowing freely at FR these days - Rush, Palin, Levin, and a host of other conservative paragons are being cast off as unclean because they see a clear difference between Obama and Romney. I guess lesser minds will philosophize and then bend to stronger personalities in order to validate themselves, but this is lunacy.