DONATE NOW, MONTHLY IF YOU CAN!
WHAT WOULD YOU DO WITHOUT FREE REPUBLIC?
Posted on 10/19/2011 10:35:19 PM PDT by parksstp
The Link above says it all. This is the Map that President Obama and his team of political advisors will strive for in 2012. With the economy further deteriorating, his chances of re-election seem bleak. But the Electoral College provides one clear, very plausible path to reelection. In essence, the strategy is the following:
(1) Hold the Solid Blue states that have not voted Republican in the last 24 years (2) Maintain the gains made in Hispanic Voters By AND (3) Using the Weakness of Romney/Perry in a particular State to keep it Blue (4) Cede the “Fickle 5” (as Sabato puts it), but put enough resources into these states to keep Romney/Perry out of the rest of the Blue Territory
In my previous analysis, I’ve shown that virtually any Republican nominee can hold the McCain states, as McCain’s margin of victory in all but three states (MT, MO, and GA) were all 8% or greater. It doesn’t appear that any of these three states are likely to flip to blue this time regardless of whether the nominee is Romney or Perry.
That’s the basic starting point for the Republican strategy to reclaim the White House. From here, most pundits are writing North Carolina and Indiana back into the red column, and if Obama’s recent bus trip in NC showed something, it’s that his chances there are becoming incredibly slim. Even in Virginia, Tim Kaine doesn’t want to be seen with Obama, which means that VA is falling back into the red side as well. And it is very difficult to see how FL and OH give Obama a plurality/majority this time around with the economy in poor shape. These states (IN, NC, VA, FL, and OH) are the states that the Republican nominee will look at to get to the White House.
However, these states added to the rest of the red states equates to only 266 Electoral Votes. Both candidates would need to capture 1 additional blue state to secure an Electoral College majority, assuming Pennsylvania doesn’t pass their EC by CD plan, which would almost virtually guarantee a Republican victory, but is unlikely to pass before 2012.
New Hampshire
This is where Romney will try to win the election. However, while those “fickle 5” look good to go Red regardless, I believe Romney would have to spend more resources in these states to secure them. And if he shows signs of trouble, that is bad because so far he has shown that he has great difficulty gaining any upward traction. The Obama campaign will exploit this. They’ll spend just enough in the “Fickle 5” to force Romney to spend decent time/money there, while putting the bulk of their resources into protecting the Upper Midwest, and NH at all costs. And let’s face it, while NH should be a good chance for Romney, it is nowhere near being a slam dunk. John McCain, the darling of the NH primaries was blown out in the General against Obama. Depending on how Romney’s chances in holding the “Fickle 5” go, he might be tempted to pick up Ayotte as a running mate, if he thought he was safe enough in the states listed above. As for Rick Perry, he’d have a much difficult time in NH. It’s not a state with a voting electorate that’s suited to him.
Pennsylvania Two conflicting problems abound here. For Perry, he’d have a difficult time winning the suburban/outer Philadelphia suburbs that are needed to win the state. For Romney, he’d underperform in Lancaster/York counties and the PA Heartland, performing a little better than McCain overall in the state, but still falling short. The Philadelphia/Pittsburgh voting machines are strong here and will be in full force for 2012. PA has not gone red in over 20 years. The Obama campaign will pump resources into it and dangle out there like PA is up for grabs.
Michigan Another state that has demographics set up like PA, only switch the coal industry with the auto. A recent poll still showed Romney trailing in double digits here to Obama. The question is this: Can Romney get enough conservatives in MI to vote with the moderates that would be enough to flip MI to red? It doesn’t appear so. Was Thad McCotter trying to make his presence known to be Romney’s running mate as a pro-Union guy? Would it matter? I don’t know. If Romney can’t win in what would be a defacto home state for him, it’s hard to see how Perry would win here. And let’s not forget the Detroit voter machine.
Wisconsin As weak as Obama is, some of his strongest alliances will be the Unions and other leftist groups that are fired up over Gov. Walker’s reforms. The Tea Party and Conservatives were just as fired up and were able to oust Feingold, hold the Supreme Court, and hold onto the State Legislature majority. And it took everything we literally had to remain competitive. Of all the states, emotions will run high in WI. It was razor thin in 2000/2004. Romney would like to think his economic experience would play well here. However, the question would be whether or not the Tea Party in WI would unite for him in numbers strong enough to be competitive. ANY drop-off would probably spell doom in WI and the Obama campaign knows this. This is why they’ll pour great resources into WI/MI to hold them with the Southwestern gains. As for Perry, he can get the Tea Party support, but has the immigration issue sunk him enough to render him uncompetitive here? I don’t know.
Iowa Mitt Romney can’t win Iowa. Period. If he is the nominee, IA will be ceded to Obama, where they will be more than willing to throw mega resources into holding WI/MI and the Southwest as part of their potential winning strategy. It looked like in Perry’s case he was going to be a strong contender in IA, and that might still be the case depending on how things play out. Perry still plays well to the religious conservatives, which is what you need to have a chance here. At the least, Perry would make Obama spend more resources here than Romney, though the subsidy and leftist crowd still lean the state blue for the time being.
Colorado/New Mexico/Nevada The second part of the Obama strategy in addition to holding PA/NH/MI/WI and IA is to hold the Southwest. They would absolutely love to run against Rick Perry, because Perry’s chances in all three states seem very weak at the moment, because he has drawn the ire of the conservative bases here for calling them “Heartless”. Add this to Tom Tancredo’s Damning article on Rick Perry’s stance on immigration and it is hard to see how he stays competitive in CO. Nevada is also difficult because of how the factions of the Republican base there is spread out. As the neighboring Governor of TX, New Mexico seems like it would be Perry’s best chance to take. But because of immigration, he is weak there too. None of these states are a walk in the park for Romney either. The Tea Party is particularly strong in CO and if they withheld support, even if it was minimal, would probably doom Romney in CO. And NV’s GOP factions would probably keep him from having a chance here, because he would need CONSERVATIVES to vote for him in strong enough numbers. I don’t know about NM. Out of the 3, it’s probably the best of all the SW Toss-Up states, but the Obama campaign will pour massive amounts of money into it, especially to protect the Senate seat in NM.
So, despite all the weaknesses of President Obama, they will have a chance to exploit weaknesses in Perry and Romney should one of these men become the GOP nominee.
Knowing the potential strategy and the map the Obama campaign will use to hold onto power, we have to ask ourselves whom the best candidate is that, given all the toss-up states, would not have the weaknesses Romney/Perry command and could compete across the battlegrounds with all the voting demographics so as to disrupt the Obama re-election strategy?
Rick Santorum – Highly unlikely he will be the nominee, but in the off chance he was, I’d think his outlook would be slightly better than Perry/Romney. First, Santorum would have no problem holding the McCain states , and IN, NC, and VA would all be slam dunks with minimal resources having to go here. The question is could he snatch FL and OH? I think he could hold FL. OH would be more up in the air. But, even though he’s polling weak in the IA caucuses, I’d give Santorum a better chance than Perry to carry it the General. And given the Tea Party Strength in CO, I think he’d have a much better shot to win there than either Perry/Romney. While Santorum thinks he could win PA, I’d doubt it. Would be ironic to see Toomey campaigning for him. If I were Santorum, I’d be lobbying hard for PA to pass the EC by CD bill.
Michele Bachmann – She would have a more slightly difficult chance than Rick Perry were she the nominee. Essentially, both Perry and she would be pinning their hopes on the “Fickle 5” and IA. While I think she’d have a good shot in IA, I think she would have to spend more resources in shoring up OH and FL. And while I love Michele, unfortunately, I have not been impressed from her debate performances or organization skills. Her campaign looks like it would be ran the way McCain ran 2008, without a purpose and forgotten.
Ron Paul/John Huntsman – Okay, you know what I said about every nominee winning the McCain states? I take that back. I haven’t a clue what these guys would carry, but if you want to assure BHO another term, go ahead and nominate one of these bozos. Neither would carry the “Fickle 5”.
Newt Gingrich – This is hard to calculate because his poll numbers continue to rise from his debate performances. Like Romney/Perry, he can probably carry the “Fickle 5”. But also like Romney/Perry, finding that additional state might be difficult. You just don’t know with Newt. Will the personal baggage do him in? Pelosi on the couch picture? Throwing Paul Ryan under the bus? Right-Wing Social Engineering? Newt is clearly the scholar and smartest guy of the bunch but that doesn’t mean he’ll do what we want him to do, because after all, Newt knows better, right? I think if he were the nominee, the Tea Party would forgive him and coalesce around him, but would it be at the unified level to flip the last blue state needed to red? I don’t know.
Herman Cain – I saved the best for last. Given how this electoral map plays out and knowing the strategy Obama’s going to employ, Herman Cain shatters it. In every toss-up state I listed above, Cain has a better chance than both Romney/Perry, because he carries what is perceived as the best attributes of the both of them, without their baggage or weaknesses. Cain is leading the polling in the IA caucuses and in a strong 2nd in NH. He can win the outer suburbs/moderates/independents in PA, MI, and WI without alienating the conservative or Tea Party platform. He is a strong social conservative, which is why he plays well in IA, and he has taken on a strong immigration stance which will only help him in CO and NM. And while NV will be tough, he’s the best candidate to unify the GOP factions there. He would easily recapture the “Fickle 5”, but is the 1 candidate that seems to have multiple shots across the board at the toss-ups, without having to put all his eggs in 1 basket.
This is pure blather. Basing anything off of what that idiot with the rat on his head, Sabato, has to say is ridiculous. He is a lefty hack who rarely gets anything right. If you want to play the game of “if the election held today”, look at Obummers polls and look at the enthusiasm gap between GOP and Rat. Know what it says? Anyone can beat Obummer, including Perry.
don’t forget about the sizable fraction (Juan Williams says 1/3) of black votes that Herman Cain would pull away from Obama that no other Republican can.
1/3 is a bit large. I doubt he could pull that high. 10-15% would be very significant.
Been saying it for months.
Strongly disagree! Romney follows in the shoes of Dole and McCain. He will not carry the South with the exception of WV which is really not a southern state in many ways.
A Romney or Perry is going to see a lack of enthusiasm for their candidacy. We’re better off essentially imprinting the futility of the Democrat agenda on the younger generation by forcing Obama’s ineptitude down their throats. Much of America has already come to understand this already. With a Republican Senate and House, Obama is effectively neutered. He’ll be the poster child for uselessness. Conservative voters do not want a RINO. They’ll pull the lever for conservative candidates and leave Romney/Perry’s dance card empty.
The Republican Party cannot win with a ‘perfect’ candidate like Tom Dewey or Mitt Romney. There’s a lot of the Harry Truman persona in Cain.
Give’m hell, Herman!
You might think so, but look at all the criminality and sidestepping the congress the Regime is doing already. Might be easier to strong arm a squish in the WH, much like we stopped Bush's Harriet Myers idea and Amnesty, than hope for a miracle against another 4 years of absolute misery. The squish in question is Perry. I don't know about Mittens. He is pretty slimy.
His SCOTUS nominations could sink us for a couple of generations.
And it's not just Obama I want gone as soon as possible. I want Holder, Napolitano, Clinton and all of that other scum out of office.
If Romney or Perry get the nomination, we get 4 more yrs of Obumo. Don’t underestimate his re-electability via class warfare and scapegoating. More than enough of the electorate will buy into that for him to pose a serious threat.
It’s obvious that Romney won’t carry the conservative vote, and that Perry will be viewed as a redux of GW Bush.
I agree with getting the scum out. Unfortunately neither Romney nor Perry are going to edge Obama out.
Many states' polls are all over the map, but Mitt Romney is close to Obama or ahead of Obama in Michigan and Pennsylvania. Furthermore, Obama is underwater in approval in these states. Being underwater in approval doesn't guarantee an Obama loss, but a credible GOP candidate can flip a state where the president is underwater in approval. To be credible, a candidate has to have the right mix of experience and be able to talk about the issues clearly. Mitt Romney has that experience and can speak clearly. I understand that everyone on Free Republic sees Mitt Romney as the anti-Christ. You'd rather re-elect Obama than vote for Mitt Romney. However, your wishful thinking that Mitt Romney can't win these states doesn't change the fact that he can both. He is certainly more likely to win one or both of these states than Herman Cain is.
John McCain was popular in New Hampshire relative to other Republicans, but he was still a pathetic candidate. Against Barack Obama, he appeared old and out of touch. New Hampshire voters are not as enthralled with the cowboy image that some conservatives think is necessary for someone to be a conservative. Republicans have had a hard time in New Hampshire because most recent Republicans have had that image. Mitt Romney won't have that image problem, so he has a good chance to win New Hampshire.
Mitt Romney has made numerous trips to Nevada and won the caucuses there easily in 2008. In spite of what the Romney haters think, many conservatives either like Mitt Romney or would at least rather have him than have Obama for four more years. Those who are still comfortable in their jobs and haven't lost too much value in their homes can hide behind their keyboards, whine about things that Mitt Romney has said in the past, and insist that they'd rather have another four years of Obama. Huge numbers of Americans in other situations don't believe that anti-Romney accusations and wouldn't care that much even if they did as long as Mitt Romney kept his promises to start making changes that will bring back jobs. They make a Romney win likely in Nevada in spite of the howling of the Romney haters.
Mitt Romney has also been active campaigning in Colorado and would have a good chance to put Colorado in play. Colorado has a bit of a yuppie demographic. Many of those people saw John McCain as old and out of touch and saw Sarah Palin as an idiot. I can disagree with them all day long about Sarah Palin, but my disagreement doesn't change the fact that they flocked to Obama. A credible GOP ticket and the poor economy would bring them back to the GOP. The Tea Party may be active in Colorado, but the gains among urban and suburban professionals would more than compensate for Tea Party types who hate Mitt Romney more than they want Obama out of office. Mitt Romney could win Colorado.
New Mexico is likely to stay in Obama's column, but his approval there is low. A credible candidate has a chance, but the Democrats may win simply because they will put resources into the senate campaign that you mentioned. Our choice of candidate probably doesn't affect the New Mexico outcome that much, but Mitt Romney does no worse than any others.
Indiana will almost certainly go back to the GOP. We lost Indiana only because people bought into the whole "hope and change" myth and because we ran a weak ticket. Winning Indiana shouldn't be consideration.
Florida should go back to the GOP because of Obama's positions on Israel, but we will need to be careful. Rick Perry will have a hard time winning Florida because of his statements about Social Security. For most workers, Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan may not be so bad because wages may rise as corporations with lower tax rates use some of the extra money to compete for the best employees. For retirees, the addition of a national sales tax is a loss without any compensating gain. Cain's 9-9-9 will never pass the Senate anyway, but if we are going to admit that his plan cannot pass, then the rationale for supporting him as a candidate disappears also. Herman Cain and Rick Perry are the GOP's weakest candidates for winning Florida in the general election even though the "anyone but Romney" vote is making Herman Cain competitive in primary polls. Unless we can swing Pennsylvania and Michigan, we need to win Florida, and Mitt Romney has a much better chance than Herman Cain does.
The GOP will have to work to win Ohio again, but conditions are right for that win. None of our candidates will have a particular advantage in Ohio, and Herman Cain's Georgia background certainly doesn't make him "one of us" in Ohio.
North Carolina barely went for Obama in 2008 and should swing back to the GOP fairly easily. Even so, North Carolina has a large population of people who are highly educated and work in technology intensive jobs. They are more likely to relate to Mitt Romney than they are to Herman Cain. They certainly won't relate to Rick Perry.
Virginia will be like North Carolina, and the big population of urban/suburban professionals in Northern Virginia will also lean more towards a more educated candidate. Any Republican is going to have some problems with this population because reducing the federal government will eliminate many of the jobs that support the Northern Virginia sprawl. For image reasons, these people won't vote for Rick Perry. They probably won't have a big preference between Mitt Romney and Herman Cain.
Iowa is the only state where Mitt Romney would have a serious disadvantage against Obama compared to other Republicans. The religious conservatives will fall into the Jeffries style of anti-Mormon voting, and Mr. Romney's decision to skip the straw poll will bother the entire state.
Again, I realize that Free Republic is headed by and full of people who hate Mitt Romney more than they hate Obama. I realize that they'd rather have another four years of Obama than to see Mitt Romney become president. If that's how you feel, that's your right. However, the notion that Mitt Romney isn't the strongest candidate against Obama is silly.
Think in the end it will come down to Romney winning above the Mason Dixon line and Perry below it.
Cain will strip votes away from both Romney and Perry.
Rick Perry may not have the strength to win much in the South during the primaries either. He makes himself look worse with every debate appearance. Rick Perry is doing poorly in Florida right now, and he's not doing that well in South Carolina. If he doesn't win at least one of those states, his campaign may never recover.
Any Republican should win most of the South during the general election.
This commentary wasn't about the primaries but was about the general election. Mr. Romney has a good chance to win the nomination, but that outcome isn't certain. Either way, my point is not about what happens in the primaries but what will happen in the general election.
If Free Republic wants to be against Mitt Romney's nomination or against his election if he wins the nomination, that's the site's choice. However, trying to fool yourselves into believing that Mitt Romney isn't the candidate most likely to defeat Obama is foolish. If you want to oppose him in the primaries in spite of the strength that he'd bring to the general election, that's your choice. If you want to vote 3rd party if he wins the nomination, that's your choice. You can even pretend that he's not the most likely candidate to beat Obama, but when someone makes such a ridiculous statement, I'm going to point out why that statement is wrong.
Jim R. is right. If Romney does manage (like McCain “managed”, thanks to a great big assist by Rudy) to win the nomination, we will be facing the same problem we had in that situation. Screwed if you do, screwed if you don’t. Many of us are getting very, very tired of that option and have and probably will again come up with another alternative.
Rommey may get a few more votes than McCain did, but he still will not get enough, unless Dems vote for him, which would not really surprise me. They all like John Holdren. Peeee yuuuuu. 100 years (or more) of establishment Republicans seems to have done little good for conservatives or the country in general. I won’t vote for the man, who like John Kerry feels that the country owes him the Presidency since the day of his birth (Governor for a father and Senator for a mother).
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.