Posted on 01/25/2015 4:51:12 PM PST by parksstp
For the first time in a LONG time, given the anticipation of some of the candidates running, I can finally look at the Electoral Map and see not just ~50%/%50%, but a real possibility of gaining the upper-hand in the projected battleground states
Barring some enormous gaffe that not even the mainstream media could help cover up, neither Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, nor Chris Christie has any realistic shots of beating the Democratic nominee.
The reason is simple. We've had 2 GOPe candidates run and lose pretty much every battleground state to Barack Obama. Knowing the states that will be battlegrounds, I see nothing to convince me this would change. Not only would Christie not carry NJ, Bush would lose FL. And given how dominant Franklin County was last time, I see none of the 3 being a serious contender in OH, and with the exception of AZ, performing poorly again in the Southwest.
Thankfully, I've identified 2 (possibly 3 - and just maybe 4) candidates that I think have EXCELLENT chances in what will be the Battleground States. And by this I mean that our Red States will get "redder" and the Blue States will get less blue and force the liberals to spend more money in them than they would like.
A recap, first. It take 270 Electoral Votes to win the Election. The GOP Candidate needs only 269 votes to win since the majority of State delegations will be GOP. The Senate vote could get interesting, but the GOP VP Nominee should have the advantage their too.
First off are the traditional Republican Red States. These states have been pretty much uncontested. However, if the GOPe shoves a candidate down conservatives' throats again, all bets are off. I really feel this is the last straw.
Alaska (3), ID(4), UT(6), AZ(11), MT(3), WY(3), ND(3), SD (3), NE(5), KS(6), OK (7), TX(38), AR(6), LA(8), MS(6), AL (9), GA(16), SC(9), TN(11), KY(8), Wv (5), MO(10), IN(11)
This is 191 Electoral Votes the GOP SHOULD have locked up. Mitt Romney won them last time, but a conservative would win them with larger margins.
The Dems have the usual advantages here:
HI(4), WA(12), CA(55), MN(10), IL(20), DC(3), MD(10), DE (3) NJ(14), NY(29), CT(7), RI(4), MA(11), VT(3)
That's 185 Electoral Votes. And no, leaving OR and ME off was not a mistake.
The Battlegrounds Appear to Make up 14 States this time, including:
Florida (27), NH(4), ME(4), NC(15), VA(13), PA(20), OH(18), MI(16) WI(10), IA(6), OR(7), NV(6), CO(9), and NM(5)
We have 4 Regions which play out:
Upper Northeast (NH & ME) Florida Midwest (WI, MI, IA, OH) Southwest + OR (NV, CO, NM, OR)
Folks, if you are looking at this map and are a supporter of TED CRUZ, or SCOTT WALKER, and to some extent Marco Rubio you have to look at this map and say: "Dayum! Finally, this looks like this could be good for us for a change.
Let's start with CRUZ. If CRUZ is the nominee, I believe you can add NC, FL, and VA to the GOP totals. In most scenarios FL is must win for the GOP though the map is technically playable without it, but it's for reasons I think Cruz is strong enough to win FL that I think he would also be competitive in the Southwest battlegrounds of NV, CO, and NM. Seriously, if Ted Cruz can't pick up those southwestern states then it's unlikely any of the GOP nominees can. But I don't think he has to sweep them all. Outperforming the last 2 elections and forcing the Democrats to spend money there when they'd rather be attacking OH/FL and defending PA could still be a win, because not only is Cruz good in the Southwest, but I believe he could be the ultimate candidate in IA as well. VA has shown that when a conservative runs, the votes are still there to carry the candidate across. One thing is certain, a GOPe won't carry VA again. Then there's NC. I still have my doubts about how close this state really was in 2012 (I guess that happens when you can vote 12 times and get a Total statewide vote greater than GA (who has more EVs))
TED CRUZ would force the Dems to live in OH where they'd rather be out elsewhere because if he were to win OH/FL, its over because he'd be heavily favored to win 1 of IA,CO, NM, or NV and that's all it would take.
In short, of the 14 Battlegrounds, I'd favor Cruz in 4 (FL, NC, VA, and IA), but the rest of the states would be within margins of Bush/Gore 2000 one way or the other. He could win them all, he could lose them all. But I like his chances.
Then there's SCOTT WALKER. He could end up being the ultimate compromise candidate between the GOPe and conservatives, provided he doesn't ruin it. For once, WI and MI along with OH and IA might be in serious play. He could be the strongest candidate from the Midwest the Republicans have had for a long time. And I think come primary time, he might also surprise in NH against the GOPe, and OR/CO could be in play too. He doesn't have the advantages of a CRUZ in the NV and NM but perhaps depending on who he takes as a running mate could give him a boost. But really the map gives him an excellent chance.
Marco Rubio to some extent could have some of the advantages of a Ted Cruz. But if he can't solve the division he's created on the amnesty issue with conservatives I don't see him performing as well as a Ted Cruz in the general, and it's going to take a strong performance to win. But I'll keep an open mind for now. Many here gave Newt a second chance when his campaign looked dead before it had started. So I'll give Rubio that chance for now and if he makes the right moves, I think things will be ok. If he keeps buddying with McCain, then maybe not so much.
Republicans do not have a chance in Boulder County Colorado
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/docs/2014BoulderReport.pdf
“Any Republican who gets 40 percent of the Hispanic vote in the general election will win the White House.”
Is Ted Cruz ‘Post-Hispanic’?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3249486/posts
The reason is that winning Florida also means winning the GOP leaners -- NC and probably VA. Winning Ohio also means winning NV(6), CO(9), and NM(5) and/or IA(6). Winning Pennsylvania would mean winning at least some of the Democrat leaners-- MI(16) WI(10), IA(6), OR(7), NH(4) and maybe one or more districts in ME(4) where the vote may be split 3-1 or 1-3. There is no way to split Maine 2-2.
Simple.
Run to win every state or don’t waste our time.
Barring a highly effective GOPe saboutage effort, Ted Cruz would win PA (Philly suburbs, Reagan democrats, and formerly disaffected conservatives). This coalition would also lead him to victory in WI, MI, IA, and NH.
Given Walker’s close ties to GOPe, his lack of national political experience, and his refusal to stand and fight along Ted in defending the Constitution would make him very uncompetitive in Battleground states.
A significant number of Walker voters voted for Obama in 2012. He could not deliver his home state. Walker would certainly lose Wisconsin to Hillary (or Elizabeth Warren) in 2016.
The Candidate Rombush is going to go all out to appeal to the Liberal base in the Coastal states and will improve his losing margin over that of the last couple of elections in one or two of those states while losing a few more conservative states because it is simply not worth the effort to go out and vote for more same-o same-o. Why would people who hate Obama and what he has done to the country vote for a Gope who is pledged to maintain the status quo as he finds it while cranking up the spending machine for more “signature” welfare programs?
Your analysis is thorough and well thought out. As a conservative I would like Cruz to head up the ticket and he would win in the South but, he would need a strong Midwesterner to solidify his chances nationwide. Walker would be my choice for the number two slot but would he accept? Kasich is not quite as conservative but probably would carry Ohio. I hope we settle one a winning team early.
When you opt for electability, you usually lose, unless your opponents are even more determined to lose.
If the Republicans runs on the same old tired message (1996, 2008, 2012), the result will be the same, partly because no one believes they want smaller government, lower taxes, fewer government regulations, etc., based on their recent history.
So far the only one I’m seeing who seems to get it at all is Cruz and its not all negativity.
I do think a Cruz Walker ticket would be strong.
Reagan couldn’t win either, remember?
Bush would not lose Florida to Hillary, he is very popular there, not saying I want him but that is a flat false premise
I’m thinking a Cruz/Walker ticket might be the way to go for 16 years.
Menthops is a liar.
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.