Conservatives wake up: Mitt Romney could still lose to Obama even if he wins back all swing states

February 3, 2012 | techno

[techno]

Georgia judge today ruled that President Obama can be on the ballot in November.

Possible result:

Mitt Romney loses Georgia (GA) and its 16 electoral votes and thus loses a close election to Obama despite winning back Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida and 1 EV in Nebraska.

Why?

Unlike every state with high evangelical populations where Obama lost to McCain by double digits, Obama only lost GA by 5.2%.

In other words, Romney could still win all the other states with "high evangelical populations" with lower evangelical turnout because he is so far ahead in party ID and because of Obama's unpopularity. But GA is a special case.

Since 2008 Atlanta has seen a heavy influx of Hispanics.

In 2012 neither US Senator from GA will be up for election. Most House seats have been gerrymandered to the point only one or two are really contestable.

And via Gallup yesterday, Obama's overall approval in GA is 44.6 which is his highest approval in any "red" state currently.

Bob Barr, ex-Congressman from GA stated several months ago that Romney would have a difficult time maximizing white evangelical turnout if he were the nominee.

Now to the actual breakdown of how Romney could still lose even if he takes back all the swing states:

Alaska (3)

Montana (3)

Idaho (4)

Wyoming (3)

Utah (6)

Arizona (11)

N Dakota (3)

S Dakota (3)

Nebraska (5)

Kansas (6)

Oklahoma (7)

Texas (38)

Arkansas (6)

Louisiana (8)

Mississippi (6)

Alabama (9)

South Carolina (9)

Tennessee (11)

Kentucky (8)

West Virginia 95)

Total------------------154

Swing states

Indiana (11)

Ohio (18)

Virginia (13)

North Carolina (15)

Florida (29)

Total--------------------86-----240

Probable wins:

Missouri* (10)

NH+ (4)

Total--------------------14-----254

Maybe wins:

Nevada (6)

Iowa (6)

Total--------------------12-----266

*McCain only won MO in 2008 by just under 4000 votes.

+NH is a sister state of MASS.

Now folks here's the deal:

Under this scenario Romney would earn a maximum of 266 EV and Obama 247 EV with two states outstanding:

Colorado (CO) (9)

Georgia (GA) (16)

NB: I am giving New Mexico (5) to Obama.

Obama is forced to win both CO and GA to get to 272 EV. By the way neither Senator from CO is up for re-election in 2012 as it is in GA. At this point I think it is realistic that Obama could win both states narrowly.

But what if Romney slips up in Missouri and Iowa where he has never been popular or fails to win back Virginia. Then Mitt is forced to win both CO and GA to win the presidency.

Bottom line folks: Our side cannot under any circumstances lose the state of Georgia and its 16 electoral votes and expect to win back the presidency.

And the only major candidate that puts GA into serious play or jeopardy is Mitt Romney.

And finally don't think that this is some secret or arcane information. Team Obama already knows what Obama needs to do to get to 270 EV. Keep one of the swing states or win MO and win GA and CO and Obama is home-free but even if Obama loses all the swing states and MO, he could still pull it out by the skin of his teeth by winning both GA and CO on election night.

[hoosiermama]

According to NPR via NYT
NEWT leads Mitt 39-32!!

Pass the word!

Click to Donate to Newt Gingrich

[Josa]

Georgia does have Voter ID which will reduce, not eliminate, voter fraud. I live in Georgia and don’t see it going for obama. My husband works in a union shop and he said that all the union IDIOTS who voted for obama in ‘08 will not vote for him in 2012.

[johnthebaptistmoore]

The left wins either way.

[techno]

Romney will be demonized to appear like the anti-Christ to Georgians.

A billion dollars can buy you a lot of that.

[Grunthor]

“Mitt Romney could still lose to Obama even if he wins back all swing states”

Thank God. I was terrified that this sack of liberal crap might actually become President!

[jeltz25]

none of us have any idea what things will look like come the fall. If we have another few months of jobs #s like January Obama won’t need to worry about GA. Or maybe things could get worse, who knows? Maybe there’s a big terror attack or Iran goes nuclear. Maybe we carry out a successful attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, or maybe it fails. Maybe we get Zawahiri.

But assuming no big events on the foreign/natl secuirty front, if the economy improves over the course of the year and the jobs #s continue to be positive as today’s were then it will be pretty esay to figure out what will happen. Just as it was in 04 or 96 or 84 or 88 or 08 or 92 or 80. If the economy’s in good shape or seen as improving the incumbent wins, if it’s in recession or seen as being in bad shape he(or the incumbent party) loses.

Also, who’d wnat to be Romney’s VP in that case? Lets say we get to August. Another 6 months of positive jobs #s and we’re near 2 million new jobs for the year. Obama is consistently above 50% approval. All the polls show Obama has things in hand and is headed to a comfortable win. Who’s going to want to be on the GOP ticket.

No VP with a potential future(Rubio, Christie, Thune, McDonnell, Ryan, etc...)is going to want to go down with the ship. The party will find an older guy who will take one for the team a la Kemp in 96. A nice guy who really has no future but he’s done a lot for the party so the VP shot will serve as a nice way to end his career and get some natl pr and exposure.

[GeronL]

WHy in the world would any evangelical conservatives vote for Romney??

[FishinTX]

Guess we better hope Mitt doesn’t get nominated.

[Williams]

Seems highly unlikely but ok.

[GeronL]

these job #’s were fake of course

[ilgipper]

Obama won’t win any states he lost last time. a 5% margin five years ago in GA is 7+ this time.

[Williams]

If Obama needs georgia to win I can take a nap and relax.

[GingisK]

Mitt Romney loses Georgia (GA) and its 16 electoral votes and thus loses a close election to Obama

There is no way Obama will win in Georgia. Did you check the margin in the last election?

[Yosemitest]

No conservative would vote for Mitt.
Let's remember what a great man said.

"Establishment Republicans" Want to Redefine the Term "Conservative"

September 21, 2011

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Folks, this is a little Inside Baseball, but it's important because
he who controls the language ends up winning the debate,
and it might seem like a small thing, but I have learned and I have been given to understand that the "establishment Republicans" hate the term.
They don't like being called "establishment Republicans,"
and they are trying to change the term to "establishment conservatives" and in the process co-opt the definition of "conservative" and conservatism.
It's not something that you'll notice if you watch cable news or even read.
You have to be able to see the stitches on the fastball, you have to be able to read between the lines,
and you have to know some stuff going on behind the scenes
(and, of course, I am in a position to know these kinds of things).

So don't doubt me on this. The establishment Republicans are the ;establishment Republicans.
The Republican leadership is the Republican establishment, meaning the elites.
They hate it and they are in the process of trying to redefine who conservatives are and what it is --
and if they succeed, the conservatism that you and I hold dear will no longer be the definition of conservatism.
If they succeed, the current thinking of the Republican establishment will be what is called modern day conservatism.
Don't doubt me on this.
It sounds like a small thing, but in a daily ebb and flow you'll not even see any news about this,
but it's in important because it's crucial who controls the language, who controls the way words are defined.

You and I know that the establishment Republicans don't like conservatives.
They didn't like Reagan.
They were embarrassed of Reagan.
They were embarrassed of us.
They didn't like the Moral Majority, they didn't like the Christian right, they don't like the pro-lifers.
They don't like the social conservatives at all.
They're embarrassed by us, in many ways, with their other buddies, the establishment Democrats --
which combined gives us the Washington establishment,
and they very much prefer to be members of that club than ours.
But they know that it doesn't help them to be called "establishment Republicans."
So they're trying to take the term "conservative" and co-opt it
and define it as they behave, write, speak, and even vote on matters of politics.

END TRANSCRIPT

"Establishment Republicans" are Lying to Us With Threats of a Dire Default

Let's remember:

Never stand and take a charge... charge them too.

Someone on another thread said

"... Constitutional limitations of government power especially freedom of the press and speech, are designed to make government impotent in the absence of a general consensus ..."

But with the press not doing its job, and the LAME Stream Media trying to silence speech they don't agree with,
we're in a real mess and under attack by an evil force rarely seen in this country.
The Republicans and the God-Given freedoms this country has enjoyed so far, are descending into oblivion.
And the "Establishment Republicans" aren't doing a damned thing to stop it.
The "Establishment Republicans" aren't providing "the boots on the ground" to win.
They're trying to put the public back to sleep, lying to them, in order to keep their power, and "wreck the country as it commits suicide".
So now the "Establishment Republicans" have "fractured their base" and,
because they have taught us "that accepting short-term loss in exchange for long-term gain is the essence of compromise, the essence of politics",
they're going to lose, and lose big, if they don't swing to the hard right wing of what used to be their party.
How many conservatives have re-registered as "Conservative Party" or "Independent" because they're fed up with being lied to?
We've been "treated to one lecture after the other on the need for “compromise” and “patience” ", and we're sick of it.
We don't trust them any longer.

Look, Rush said it best....

Now, the fact that the Republican establishment cannot make that case and other arguments
tells me that they may have already surrendered,
and this is a big difference between us and the establishment.
They're in this defensive posture, I've told you,
I said on Greta how many times, a lot of people inside the Republican establishment secretly don't even believe Obama can be beaten.
And that's why they want Romney,
'cause they think at least Romney will help 'em take the Senate.
He'll lose less down the ballot than Gingrich or some conservative will.
But conservatives, you Tea Party activists, you don't want to give up
and you haven't given up,
and you don't want to accept this propaganda from the left.
We insist on challenging it, we insist on fighting it
'cause there's no other way to save the country,
and continually playing these games
letting the Democrats rewrite the language, change the definition of things,
get away with false accusations against us, never do anything about it,
constantly stay on defense.

So now, because of the Establishment Republicans" there's not just a candle lit, but a bonfire lit ...
in the very heart of the conservatives, and it will burn away the dead wood that is "Establishment Republicans."

Yes, it's time to curse the "Establishment Republicans" for every thing they've NOT DONE!
And CURSE THEM for most of the things they HAVE DONE!

"Attack, repeat, ATTACK!"

The Republican Establishment Only Wants Conservatives on Election Day
January 31, 2012

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Thomas Sowell is out with a piece today, a column, in National Review Online.
He takes note of the Romney criticism of Gingrich and is not happy with it at all.
He describes it as "wild distortions" and lies about, for example,
why Newt is incorrectly being said to have been run out of the House in disgrace and so forth when he was completely exonerated by the IRS.
You know, all this ethics stuff.
Romney charging that he was so bad, so embarrassing, so devoid of ethics that his colleagues got rid of him and that sort of stuff.
Sowell makes the point...
And I remember, ladies and gentlemen, going back as recently at 2008, maybe 2010, trying to warn everybody what's really going on in the Republican Party.

I've tried to highlight it over and over again repeatedly as necessary, as needed.
In addition to the effort we all are engaged in to defeat Obama, the Republican Party is hell-bent on making sure
that the Tea Party (i.e., conservatives) do not conquer this party and end up controlling it or running it.
Now, Sowell is of the belief that the real purpose of Romney's assault on Gingrich
is to just take out the conservative wing of this party and defeat it and send it packing.
That it is the establishment, the RINOs, the Teddy Roosevelt wing, the Rockefeller wing, whatever -- the moderate Republicans --
who don't have a taste, don't have any ability to get down and dirty muddy and actually do what it takes to win.

It's too easy to just play the game and get close to winning now and then;
win sometimes but stay close to power however you have to do it.
Conservatism upsets that applecart, wants to deemphasize the role of government in people's lives.
The RINO Republicans don't want that.
Sowell says that what's happening here is
the establishment is waging war against the Tea Party and conservatives,
and Gingrich happens to be the Last Man Standing in that regard
so he's the target of it.
That's Thomas Sowell's opinion. A lot of people hold that view.
I know for a fact that the Republican establishment --
and you know how to define 'em.
What would you say, Snerdley, if somebody asked you...? Just in a sentence.
Let's get complex understandable here.

What is, who is (and don't give me a name) the Republican establishment?
What is it about them that makes them the establishment? (interruption)
They run Republican thought in...? No.
It's far more specific than that.
The Republican establishment wants spending.
They want active government;
they want to be in charge of it.
They'll tinker with it on the margins,
but they want to be inside the entire power structure.
They don't want to be at odds with the power structure in New York, in Washington, in the whole Northeastern Corridor.
They want to be part of it,
and they're happy being a minority part of it as long as they're close to power.
As long as they have the respect of the people who run the overall large government.

They want to be part of the Ruling Class.
They don't want to be fighting the Ruling Class.
They want to be part of it.
On the social side, they might not care
that they don't get invited to the big Fourth of July parties in the Hamptons,
but they want to be in the Hamptons when they're happening.
They don't want to be laughed out of the Hamptons.It's high school. Nobody ever really graduates high school.
It's that kind of stuff.
In this case, it's money oriented. And they are not conservative.
They don't like conservatives.
So that battle is being waged and has been going on.
It's been going on since the early 1900s, Teddy Roosevelt.
Sowell goes through all of this. You've heard it all on this program.
That's what this is about, and that's where the fault lines lie.

So people who understand and believe, if I came out today and said, "I'm voting Romney," I wouldn’t change minds.
To these people, that is a vote for the Republican establishment and against conservatives.
That is a vote for the Republican Party as a minority party forever.
That's how they see it. They just do.
And while all this is going on, the big target is, as we speak, getting away scot-free.
And that's another thing that troubles me.
On the other hand I like this battle going on
'cause I think the longer it goes the more conservatism ends up being discussed and explained,
because that's what's gonna win in the end --
and I mean at the end of the presidential race.
If whoever the nominee is doesn't go conservative, it's over.
It's just that simple.

We're not gonna go Moderate Lite and win.
We're not gonna go moderate and win.
We're not gonna go middle-of-the road and win.
We're not gonna win with going after the independents as our primary objective.
It's not gonna happen.
And I don't mean that doing so will cause people in the base to sit home.
I'm talking about getting a majority of the votes of the United States citizenry.
The vast majority of the people in this country.
This is what's so maddening about the Republican establishment
is how blind they are -- willfully blind --
to how overwhelmingly conservative this country is.
Just take a look at the people that identify themselves ideologically:
40% say they're conservative,
20% liberal,
30-some-odd independent.

Party identification is not quite as big a margin,
but when it comes to down to ideology, there are twice as many people who will tell pollsters they are conservative.
Think of that.
It's probably, therefore, greater than 40% because you know how people are intimidated.
They don't want to tell a pollster something 'cause they don't want the pollster to think
that they're a bigot or a racist or whatever the heck else.
That's pretty powerful, and I think since the majority of people in this country are conservative,
you give them a conservative agenda and you tell them you're gonna implement it, "and this is how,"
and you're gonna have the equivalent of those standing ovations Gingrich got in South Carolina all over this country on Election Day in November.

What's maddening about this is the Republican establishment knows it, and they are afraid of it.
They don't want any part of it until Election Day of any presidential year.
They'll take it that day to win
and then after that, distance themselves, insult them, impugn the conservatives, do whatever they have to do to relegate them to the dustbin.
Except on Election Day.

END TRANSCRIPT

Related Links


• NRO: Florida Smear Campaign. Mitt Romney’s Fraudulent Attacks on Newt Gingrich - Thomas Sowell
  
  

"Establishment Republicans" Want to Redefine the Term "Conservative"

"DO CONSERVATIVES WANT TO WIN IN 2012 OR NOT?"

DO CONSERVATIVES "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" WANT TO WIN IN 2012 OR NOT?

Palin was my first choice, but she dropped out.
Bachmann became my first choice,and she dropped out.
Cain was my second choice, but he dropped our.
Now ... Newt was my second choice, but he challenged Rush.
So now ... Rick Santorum, who use to be my third choice, is now my first choice.

But Romney, Perry, Ron Paul, Huntsman, and Johnson are NOT acceptable,
and if on the ballot for the general election for President or V.P., would cause me to do a write in.

There's no way in hell I can compromise my values.

Jack Kerwick wrote an article on May 24, 2011 titled The Tea Partier versus The Republican and he expressed some important issues that I agree with.

Thus far, the field of GOP presidential contenders, actual and potential, isn’t looking too terribly promising.

This, though, isn’t meant to suggest that any of the candidates, all things being equal, lack what it takes to insure
that Barack Obama never sees the light of a second term; nor is it the case that I find none of the candidates appealing.
Rather, I simply mean that at this juncture, the party faithful is far from unanimously energized over any of them.

It is true that it was the rapidity and aggressiveness with which President Obama proceeded to impose his perilous designs upon the country
that proved to be the final spark to ignite the Tea Party movement.
But the chain of events that lead to its emergence began long before Obama was elected.
That is, it was actually the disenchantment with the Republican Party under our “compassionate conservative” president, George W. Bush,
which overcame legions of conservatives that was the initial inspiration that gave rise to the Tea Party.

It is this frustration with the GOP’s betrayal of the values that it affirms that accounts for why the overwhelming majority
of those who associate with or otherwise sympathize with the Tea Party movement
refuse to explicitly or formally identify with the Republican Party.
And it is this frustration that informs the Tea Partiers’ threat to create a third party
in the event that the GOP continues business as usual.

If and when those conservatives and libertarians who compose the bulk of the Tea Party, decided that the Republican establishment
has yet to learn the lessons of ’06 and ’08, choose to follow through with their promise,
they will invariably be met by Republicans with two distinct but interrelated objections.

First,
they will be told that they are utopian, “purists” foolishly holding out for an “ideal” candidate.

Second, because virtually all members of the Tea Party would have otherwise voted Republican if not for this new third party,
they will be castigated for essentially giving elections away to Democrats.



Both of these criticisms are, at best, misplaced; at worst, they are just disingenuous.
At any rate, they are easily answerable.

Let’s begin with the argument against “purism.” To this line, two replies are in the coming.


No one, as far as I have ever been able to determine, refuses to vote for anyone who isn’t an ideal candidate.
Ideal candidates, by definition, don’t exist.
This, after all, is what makes them ideal.
This counter-objection alone suffices to expose the argument of the Anti-Purist as so much counterfeit.
But there is another consideration that militates decisively against it.

A Tea Partier who refrains from voting for a Republican candidate who shares few if any of his beliefs
can no more be accused of holding out for an ideal candidate
than can someone who refuses to marry a person with whom he has little to anything in common
be accused of holding out for an ideal spouse.
In other words, the object of the argument against purism is the most glaring of straw men:
“I will not vote for a thoroughly flawed candidate” is one thing;
“I will only vote for a perfect candidate” is something else entirely.



As for the second objection against the Tea Partier’s rejection of those Republican candidates who eschew his values and convictions,
it can be dispensed with just as effortlessly as the first.

Every election season—and at no time more so than this past season—Republicans pledge to “reform Washington,” “trim down” the federal government, and so forth.
Once, however, they get elected and they conduct themselves with none of the confidence and enthusiasm with which they expressed themselves on the campaign trail,
those who placed them in office are treated to one lecture after the other on the need for “compromise” and “patience.”

Well, when the Tea Partier’s impatience with establishment Republican candidates intimates a Democratic victory,
he can use this same line of reasoning against his Republican critics.
My dislike for the Democratic Party is second to none, he can insist.
But in order to advance in the long run my conservative or Constitutionalist values, it may be necessary to compromise some in the short term.

For example,

as Glenn Beck once correctly noted in an interview with Katie Couric,
had John McCain been elected in 2008, it is not at all improbable that, in the final analysis,
the country would have been worse off than it is under a President Obama.
McCain would have furthered the country’s leftward drift,
but because this movement would have been slower,
and because McCain is a Republican, it is not likely that the apparent awakening that occurred under Obama would have occurred under McCain.


It may be worth it, the Tea Partier can tell Republicans, for the GOP to lose some elections if it means that conservatives—and the country—will ultimately win.

If he didn’t know it before, the Tea Partier now knows that accepting short-term loss in exchange for long-term gain is the essence of compromise, the essence of politics.

Ironically, he can thank the Republican for impressing this so indelibly upon him.

I'm fresh out of "patience", and I'm not in the mood for "compromise".
"COMPROMISE" to me is a dirty word.
Let the RINO's compromise their values, with the conservatives, for a change.

The "Establishment Republicans" can go to hell!

[Patrick1]

Things are getting a little silly on FR. If Romney can’t carry Georgia he needs to worry about being another Mondale.

[tutstar]

bfl

[KoRn]

The very best a conservative republican can hope to do on an electoral map is to ‘thread the needle’ as Bush did in 2004. Unfortunately, neither Romney nor Gingrich can do it.

If Romney is the nominee, it could open up parts of the South for 0bama that he didn’t have last time. 0bama could penetrate deeper than NC and VA, due to a conservative base that is disgusted and staying home(or voting 3rd party).

I don’t see Gingrich winning Florida, and Ohio would be tough. A Republican doesn’t win without those states.

There also won’t be a Texas governor on the ticket this time around. I’d bet my bottom dollar the 0bama team are scoping out Texas right now with polling and focus groups. I’m not sure either Romney or Gingrich would carry Texas. Maybe if Romney chose Perry as a running mate.

[Proud2BeRight]

May I suggest a title change?

“Liberal establishment GOP wake up: True conservatives are not going to support your flip-flopping Massachusetts liberal candidate, We have had it with your RINOs.”

Good bye GOP, I'm voting third party or not at all if you succeed in nominating yet another worthless RINO.

[Krankor]

So, if Gingrich is the nominee, he’ll win.....Idaho?