SUDDENLY, MANY WAYS FOR ROMNEY TO REACH 270 ELECTORAL VOTES

Big Government ^ | June 10, 2012 | by JOEL B. POLLAK

[SMGFan]

The Obama campaign wants to make the 2012 contest a “choice” between its candidate and the Republican party; the Romney campaign wants to make the vote a referendum on Barack Obama. Mitt Romney is laying low, letting the election revolve around Obama--and winning. While his campaign pushes back against Obama and the mainstream media, Romney is shaking hands on the trail--and winning support in key swing states.

At the outset, Romney’s path to victory seemed a narrow one. It was universally agreed that the 2012 contest would be fought in roughly ten swing states. But Obama’s weak economic performance, and Romney’s quietly effective campaign, has narrowed the field of play. It is now reasonable to imagine that Romney will win in North Carolina and Florida--two states that Obama won in 2008 and that he will likely lose this time around.

[okie01]

#2. Would he be a better VP candidate than Marco Rubio who could probably deliver FL and a lot of Hispanic votes?

Don't expect Rubio to deliver the "Hispanic vote". The "Hispanic vote" is not a monolithic vote like the "Black vote".

Rubio can be counted upon to deliver the "Cuban-American vote", which is centered in Florida and already leans conservative.

Rubio's Hispanic ethnicity will have little impact on the "Mexican-American vote", however. His conservatism and family values will play well in Texas -- but probably not at all in California. Or in the illegal community nationwide --- even though he seems soft on the "amnesty" question.

[pistolpackinpapa]

So, what I’m getting from your comments to me is this: Rubio would not be that big of a help for the GOP Ticket. And, you make some valid points. So, just curious: Who is your pick for the VP slot?

[Hawthorn]

>> Rubio’s Hispanic ethnicity will have little impact on the “Mexican-American vote” <<

Maybe you’re correct. I don’t necessarily disagree. But what’s your evidence? Do you have a poll? Or it it just your opinion?

[comebacknewt]

Agreed.

I always vote for the most conservative candidate on the ballot. Romney was nowhere on my radar in the primary, but he is the only choice in the general.

I will reluctantly vote for him, do all I can to hold his feet to the fire, and if he doesn't govern as a conservative, try to defeat him in the next primary.

[MSF BU]

Romney is no Reagan. The social conservatives will find that out REAL quick when the Mittman does nothing about the homosexualization of the military, except tacitly encourage it.

[okie01]

So, just curious: Who is your pick for the VP slot?

Any legitimate conservative.

A candidate who secures Florida, by the way, is not a modest consideration.

My primary point was to dissuade you from the notion that the "Hispanic vote" is monolithic, like the "black vote". It's quite a different animal.

The "Hispanic vote" does not lend itself to pandering. A straightforward conservative, strong on family values, will probably capture the largest share of the Hispanic vote that is available to Republicans -- regardless of ethnicity.

There is no point in pandering to the La Raza and Aztlan crowd...or the illegals.

[Hawthorn]

>> Can Governor Bob McDonnell carry VA for the GOP if he is the VP pick? <<

Yes, but the matter isn’t really important, because IMO Virginia is already in the bag for the GOP. So a McDonnell nomination would probably be a waste.

>> Would he be a better VP candidate than Marco Rubio who could probably deliver FL and a lot of Hispanic votes? <<

I’d say not. As much as I like McDonnell (and I live in Virginia), his recent interviews with the MSM have been mediocre. Actually, disappointing. I don’t believe he’s ready for prime time at the national level.

Rubio, on the other hand, is much more articulate — seems to think faster on his feet. So even though I’m not ready to favor Rubio over ALL of the other choices, I’d definitely pick him over McDonnell.

[OrangeHoof]

I’m not so confident about Iowa or Colorado. I’m hoping that Obama keeps turning off voters with brain-dead comments like the private sector is doing fine.

[Cringing Negativism Network]

There are two options.

One we know. Obama is a known quantity, and a devout Marxist. 100% Marxist. A known and confirmed Marxist. A devout, determined Marxist if re-elected. EVERYTHING WE OPPOSE.

We probably needed to have him elected and we probably had to go through him. Luckily our nation survived so far. But we do not need to re-elect him.

Romney is less certain. He says things about the left, but the says things about the right. Mostly he is about the middle.

He can be dealt with. If we are strong so will he be, and so will our country be. We are strong, so I do not question anything.

Next time, we can hold another election. This one is pretty much won now.

Now we have one candidate. We can do what we can do, with the other. Then we can vote.

I’ll vote GOP.

[The_Reader_David]

Actually, Romney has an argument: Obamacare requires the abuse of the Commerce Clause in unprecedented ways (by month’s end he may be able to say it was unconstitutional with the backing of a SCOTUS ruling), while Romneycare was within the powers reserved to the states and the people by the 10th Amendment. Trot out the states as the laboratories of democracy trope. “In left-leaning Massachusetts where people are comfortable with government economic intervention and expect lots of government services,” Romney can say, “we tried one approach. Other states should be free to try other approaches to health care reform, not have a heavy-handed version of what we tried in Massachusetts imposed on them from Washington.”

I expect the reason he’s not making the argument is that he’s waiting on SCOTUS to rule, since the details of how he argues it will differ depending on what the ruling is.

[Izzy Dunne]

Romney is no Reagan.

Did I claim that?

No.

I'm just wondering why 350 is a "barrier" ...

[OrangeHoof]

That’s a really old column. Even predicts the GOP nominee from Nebraska who didn’t win.

[mkjessup]

Relax.
There’s 2016 to run against Romney.
Right now, let’s get Obama out of the WH.

Who are you trying to kid here?

I keep seeing this bogus argument trotted out about how conservatives can dump Romney in 2016 for a more conservative nominee, and I'm here to tell you (and anyone else who cares to pay attention), that IF 'President Romney' makes even marginal improvements in his first term, that any joker thinking they can challenge him for the nomination in 2016 and WIN is only fooling themselves. The last time a sitting President was denied the nomination of his Party was in 1884 when President Chester Arthur was unable to stymie the challenge of James G. Blaine. Now some clever analysts will suggest that LBJ was denied the nomination in 1968, however he announced that he would NOT be a candidate, and whatever reasons prompted that decision, he did not end up in Chicago being stripped of the nomination.

Now having said all this, I will point out that to successfully challenge an incumbent President requires immense political skill, far greater popularity with the public, LOTS and LOTS of money, AND encouragement from the Party leadership. Look at the 'Rats, was there ever a weaker candidate than that pathetic Kenyan douchebag? But there are no true challengers to his being renominated. Even Jimmy Carter delivered on his bravado to "whip Kennedy's ass" and indeed beat back Fat Teddy's challenge in 1980, not that it did him any good.

Conclusion: unless 'President Romney' is a far worse political operator than 0bama himself, he will be essentially a lock for renomination in 2016, and anyone believing otherwise needs to put down the bong.

[Cringing Negativism Network]

Obviously I disagree with you.

One of us is wrong...

I’ll go with you being wrong, because “our guy” will have an opposition media from day one.

[okie01]

Maybe you’re correct. I don’t necessarily disagree. But what’s your evidence? Do you have a poll? Or it it just your opinion?

There is no particular political affinity between, say, Cuban-Americans and Mexican-Americans. Or between Venezuelans and Mexican-Americans. Or Guatemalans and Spanish-Americans (NM). Most legal Hispanics in America consider themselves Americans first and ethnics second -- not unlike the Irish or the Polish.

I live in Texas and have had Hispanic neighbors and friends for decades and am merely reporting their views.

Pandering to the La Raza, Aztlan and illegal segments of the Hispanic population won't gain any votes in that segment, but will cost votes in the legal segment.

[mkjessup]

I have a better chance of occupying the White House next year than Tom Hoefling does. Talk about a waste of time.

You wasted plenty of time pushing Sarah, so I can understand your bitterness there.

Respect your fellow FReepers exercise of their own Constitutional right to vote for the candidate of their choice.

[oldsicilian]

There is a decent chance to pick up a seat in Virginia.

[mkjessup]

Obviously I disagree with you.
One of us is wrong...
I’ll go with you being wrong, because “our guy” will have an opposition media from day one.

I note that your put “our guy” in quotes, does that mean that you recognize that Romney is not “our guy” at all, so far as representing conservatives?

Romney is the liberal RINO nominee. His record is liberal, his positions are liberal, he wakes up liberal, and goes to bed liberal, day in, day out.

Now compared to 0bama, well sure Romney is a little more to the right.

Kinda like Gorbachev was when compared to Andropov. LOL

[MEG33]

I’ll vote GOP, too..
I am prayerfully hopeful that we can kick the Marxist out of the White House..

[Cringing Negativism Network]

We have who we have.

I’m dealing with that. And I’ll deal with that some more, in the future.

For right now that means supporting Mitt. We’ll see what he decides about a running mate, before making any more decisions...