Bingo. The same can be said for Colorado or Missouri, since they're still on the winner-take-all system as well, we're talking 9 and 11 electoral votes each, and a full 20 electoral votes in Ohio.
I cannot believe the arrogance of some freepers who basically want to thumb their nose at the rest of the country and write off any state that's not a nice solid "red state" in the deep south or west. It's almost as if they're begging for Bob Dole redux.
Bush won by the skin of his teeth by picking up 271 electoral votes with the minimum threshold to win being 270. With New Hampshire (one of the election 2000 states that put Bush over the top) sliding further and further to the Dems, we have to do everything we can to keep Missouri, New Mexico, Ohio, Colorado, and Iowa from going to the dark side.
Sean Hannity was on the radio the other day saying he was fairly confident that the Hilderbeast will pick a running mate who can carry a swing state (he named four possibilities, including Bill Richardson and Congressman Ted Strictland of Ohio) rather than pick Obama (who gives her nothing except praise from the MSM), and I'm inclined to agree.
The GOP needs to follow suit and get SOMEONE on the ticket who is "popular" enough in a swing state that they are guaranteed to put it in the GOP column and have the potential to put several other states as well.
And another thing, with the RATs continuing their push to abolish the electoral college and replace it with the "popular" vote so the big city goons can pick our Presidents for us, we really need to beat them to the punch on electoral college reform and have the district-by-district system adapted nationally. I am confident we would win under such a system because a lot of RAT-controlled Congressional districts that elect pro-life, pro-gun "moderate" Dem types will never vote for the likes of Hilderbeast. Bush would have won under a district-by-district system and I think the next GOP nominee can as well. But we need to adapt it nationally because in partisan states you'll see the Dems block it in California and the GOP block it in Texas and so on, to maintain the status quo monopoly over the electoral votes they currently enjoy.
In states like mine that ARE competitive outside of Chicago, such a method would finally allow us to participate in the Presidential election process.
And by the way, THIS scenario we are facing with the electoral college is why I won't "get over" freepers celebrating Tommy Thompson's exit from the primary. Just because a bunch of egomanics INSIST we nominate someone from THEIR region of the country (apparently only southern candidates are "true conservatives"... that Ronald Reagan fellow must have been an awful RINO) and want to shove a bunch of "safe state" nominees down the party's throat, doesn't mean the rest of the country will elect them. I'll all for putting a southerner on the ticket, but one that can actually WIN a state that doesn't go GOP by default, rather than someone who would lead us down the path of defeat like "President" George Allen.
Why don't we just abolish the States altogether and have regional governance, too? /s