Posted on 04/30/2012 9:13:27 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
Bush’s two successful races, and the map on which he built them, are quite instructive when trying to understand Romney’s narrow margin for error this fall.
In 2000, Bush won 271 electoral votes — one more than he needed to claim the presidency. In eking out that victory, Bush not only carried the South and Plains states with a near sweep but also claimed wins in swing states such as Nevada, Colorado, Missouri and the major electoral-vote prizes of Ohio and Florida.
If Romney was able to duplicate Bush’s 2000 map, he would take 285 electoral votes — thanks to redistricting gains over the past decade.
But to do so, Romney would need not only to win the five swing states mentioned above — with the exception of Missouri, all of them are considered tossups (at worst) for the president at the moment — but also hang on to states such as North Carolina and Virginia where Bush cruised 12 years ago. (Obama carried both states in
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Now, the good(ish) news for Romney is that if he has a low ceiling, he also has a relatively high floor.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) won 173 electoral votes in 2008. If Romney carried those same 22 states under the 2012 map, he would win 180 electoral votes.
Add Indiana, which McCain lost but which will almost certainly go for Romney in 2012, and the former Massachusetts governor’s electoral floor sits at 191.
Given the narrowness of his electoral map window, the key for Romney this fall is to win in places that Bush, McCain and other Republican nominees over the past two decades have struggled to make inroads. No Republican has carried Pennsylvania (20 electoral votes), Michigan (16) or Wisconsin (10) in any of the past five elections, for example.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
As a Virginia (swing state) voter, why should I not put him in power to replace Obama? I agree there are potential bad outcomes trading a socialist for a liberal. But to me that is a net gain. You have other ideas why Romney is worse but won't itemize them.
You forgot to mention one must-win state for Romney (FL) and one competitive state that could put Romney over the top (CO).
The McCain states + the Omaha CD + IN + NC + VA + FL + OH = 266. If Romney wins those states, he needs just one more state for 270, even if it’s as small as NH (4 EVs). NV, IA or CO would also do the trick. But if Romney can’t win OH, he’s unlikely to win PA or MI, either, and would be unlikely to get to 270.
And being a PA resident, I don't see how Romney wins here. You win statewide as a pubbie in PA by starting out as being demonstrably pro-life and pro-gun. False-front Dem groups can run ads showing Romney to be neither.
Romney can try to run away from his history. But the Dems won't let him.
Bullcrap and you know it. The GOP-E has chosen a far-left RINO for the nominee. And allowed Romney to destroy all conservative alternatives. They would rather lose with the RINO than win with a conservative. The fault is not that of individual FReepers looking at what Romney and the GOP-E has wrought. The fault is that of the pinheads who brought the party to this morass in the first place.
If you aren't going to vote for Romney, I would look at not voting for president or voting third-party. Obama IS even worse than Romney (although both suck). Don't reward either major party with your vote for putting up these two lemons this cycle.
Constitution party has the only prolife candidate, so they’ll earn my vote for the presidency.
Downballot, I’ll vote with the rest of the republican ticket. Gridlock is the best we can do at this point.
As opposed to Ocare, which got passed while the democrats had supermajorities? I’ll take EOs which get rescinded over O-care anyday.
Hrm? I didn’t say anything about Christie. My issue with Christie is that he’s soft on guns and babies.
He’s good for New Jersey, but that’s not exactly saying much.
How is Christie prolife? I’ve not seen anything to indicate such.
“I’ll take EOs which get rescinded over O-care anyday.”
Have any of Obama’s been rescinded since the Dems lost the House? Can you deal with them for four more years?
If people think this guy hates America now, wait until he’s not running for re-election.
“Have any of Obama’s been rescinded since the Dems lost the House? Can you deal with them for four more years?
If people think this guy hates America now, wait until he’s not running for re-election.”
Over Slick Williard and the disaster he left in MA? I’ll take enemy fire over friendly fire anyday.
Christie has regularly stated he is pro-life, and has spoken at pro-life rallies; it isn’t new to him. I’m not sure why people think he’s pro-abortion.
As far as guns go, I’m not aware of him targeting guns while in office.
You are right that his solutions for NJ, while effective, probably don’t mean much to people in other parts of the country. As I’ve said in other posts, he has the right enemies.
“Over Slick Williard and the disaster he left in MA? I’ll take enemy fire over friendly fire anyday.”
Maybe you’ll get your wish; I don’t remember this level of revulsion directed at McCain, and I don’t see much difference between them. McCain squandered his opportunity (and four years of our lives), Romney has already attacked Obama more than McCain did throughout his whole campaign.
McCain was prolife and supported traditional marriage. Slick Williard has all of his faults, lik reaching around the aisle, and none of his conservative bona fides.
I supported McCain, but I’m not going along with Romney. If the GOP wants my support, nominate someone who believes what I do.
http://azpundit.com/the-problem-with-chris-christie-for-2012/
Pretty good article, and Ann Coulter’s also been supporting Romney. Ann’s endorsement meant something before, but she’s really been drifting this last while.
As for his prolife credentials:
http://familypolicy.net/us/?p=9975
He supports abortion in the case of rape, + incest.
As I said, soft on guns and soft on babies. He’s good for New Jersey, but not much else.
He does support traditional marraige, which makes him better than Mitt though.
“He supports abortion in the case of rape, + incest.”
By that definition 90% of the US is pro-abortion; he doesn’t advocate for abortion. When you look at the forces aligned against him, he’s doing something right. Maybe he is more of a TEA Party candidate than a social conservative (the TEA Party avoids social issues), but for NJ and other high tax, big government states he has answers. I’d rather see him in office than watch the GOP constantly just write off those types of states.
What a difference 18 months can make.
Back in November, 2010 Pennsylvania had decidedly turned Republican. Not only did we win the Governor’s race and send Pat Toomey to the Senate, but we in fact helped win the House by electing 5 more Republicans than DemonRats. Then in addition, we took control of both the State House and Senate as well.
Back then, I said that come 2012, Pennsylvania would turn “GOP RED” for the first time since 1988.
Now, I’m not so sure.
The real problem we face is if we allow Romney a win, from here on out, every Lib who wants to be President will change affiliation, and offer themselevs as a Republican Candidate. Clearly, Bloomberg will become the future standard of GOP candidate. The Establishment, which only wants to win, will embrace every one of them, just assuming the hard-line Conservatives will always vote for the R. The party will quickly become a Conservative Party in name only. Already, you could make a case that it is.
Truth is, if we all had voted for Obama last time around, and McCain got only 15 Electoral votes, the Elites would have gotten the message, and we likely wouldn’t have Romney. And nothing would have been different practically, beyond our stongly sent message.
I can understand how many people feel a vote for Obama is justified, and I almost agree with them. If it weren’t for the Supreme Court, I’d be fully on board myself.
“By that definition 90% of the US is pro-abortion”
22 percent believe that it should be illegal in all cases, according to Gallup. That’s about half the GOP. Christie’s on the wrong side of the GOP line here.
“When you look at the forces aligned against him”
Fiscally, he’s solid. Socially, he’s soft on abortion and soft on the second amendment. These are issues with him running a national campaign. We can do better than Christie.
“Maybe he is more of a TEA Party candidate than a social conservative (the TEA Party avoids social issues).”
Not if he supports gun control. 80 percent of tea party folks are in opposition to him. 60 percent of tea party folks also believe that abortion should be illegal.
He’s a GOP mainstream candidate. He’s also weak on immigration.
So, tell me, exactly, what do we (I) do instead?
A more conservative segment of the population carried the day in 2010.
Now we`ll have the whole gaggle that comprises the American electorate out there this time.. and the anti-Obama enthusiasm isn`t nearly as intense as it was in 2010.
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.