40-state sweep

Dail Mail ^ | April 1, 2012 | Don Surber

[QT3.14]

Two years ago today, I predicted a 51-seat gain in the House of Representatives for the Republican Party. At the time, experts gave Democrats better than even odds of maintaining the House. Given that they had a 76-seat advantage — Republicans would need to flip 39 seats to take the House — that seemed reasonable. To be sure, most voters wanted the newly enacted Obamacare repealed, but experts said voters would get over that by November, when the economy picked up.

[mardi59]

I thought we had 57 states. That's what the dummy said.

[stephenjohnbanker]

We’ll see.

[Pollster1]

The 2012 election is all about Barack Obama.

I don't agree on the 40 state sweep and don't consider it productive to speculate, but I do consider this a very strong year for the GOP as long as we stay motivated to go the the polls. I've said for two years (on FR and not just professionally) that this election will be an up or down vote on BO, and the GOP nominee is almost irrelevant in terms of the election outcome, so I'll agree that this is all about Obama. It's just a shame that Romney is leading for the nomination.

[SoConPubbie]

A 40-state sweep for Mitt Romney harkens only to Reagan’s victories in 1980 and 1984, but it will do.

I base my prediction on several factors:

1. Mitt Romney did well in all the Republican primaries in blue states. This shows he has organized Republicans in those states, even though they are small in number. Judging by my experience in West Virginia, they tend to be just as conservative as the Republicans elsewhere — it is tougher to be a minority than a majority — but they are pragmatic.

2. Mitt Romney should put New England in play. Boston dominates that section of the country and the people in that area know him. He’s the Mormon Kennedy to them. He does not smoke or drink. Ah, there’s a religion that the Kennedy clan should consider.

3. Barack Obama is running scared. 4 years ago, he was a blank slate. Today his blackboard is filled with a lot of action and little results. The $787 billion stimulus did nothing. The $700 billion TARP went into bankers pockets. The GM bailout affected only 1 in 5 Americans who actually buy a GM or Chrysler. The Arab Spring backfired. He gave up on Iraq and we are being tossed out of Afghanistan.

4. Obamacare. Never has a presidential domestic policy been so despised. The Vietnam War was more popular in 1968 — and LBJ decided against another term.

What a joke of an article.

Point by Point:

1. These blue states he talks about, went for Obama big time against John McCain, and while Obama has been miserable from a Republican perspective and an absolute piece of crap from a conservative perspective, his behavior only strengthens his appeal to his core constituencies in these "Blue" States. Romney, because he looks so much like Obama with respect to their actual records, doesn't stand a chance in these "Blue" States. It is actually the reverse of what the GOP-E toady is stating. This is so bad it would seem that Karl Rove wrote this piece of make-believe.
2. ditto for #2.
3. This will help Romney somewhat, but Romney's own record of supporting TARP and the bailouts and his agressive use of fees/taxes to try and balance the MA budget as Governor coupled with his RomneyCare will be used by Obama and the Media to completely neutralize this advantage.
4. This one is just plain laughable. RomneyCare, which Romney refuses to state the obvious about, that it was Socialized Medicine at it's worse and a glaring mistake, will be hung around Mitt Romney's neck like an anchor.

I hope the original intent of the OP was not to drum up support for Romney with this drivel as it's does nothing to support the contention that Romney can even squeak out a win, much less a landslide like this head-in-the-sand author of the article wants to believe.

[butterdezillion]

Having Romney as the candidate would be the best thing for Obama because it could suppress the conservative vote, which would affect not only the presidential election but also all the candidates down-ballot.

I think the people who are backing Romney are doing so because they believe he is “electable”. But if what you’re saying is true, Joe Blow from off the street is “electable”.

We need to fight to keep Romney from being the GOP candidate. What’s the difference between the feds coercing people into performing abortions against their will and a STATE coercing people into performing abortions against their will? It’s tyranny either way, and as long as our candidate is just as bad as Obama on Obamacare we’ve shot ourselves in the foot on an issue that resonates with 60-75% of the public.

[SoConPubbie]

40-state sweep

Maybe for Obama, but not for that lying, left-wing, Progressive Liberal Romney when his actual record shows nothing to recommend him to the base of the Party.

On almost nothing does Romney's actual record diverge from Obama's record. He IS just a whiter shade of fail:

[muawiyah]

Romney will keep the Republican vote down ~ maybe by as much as 15 or 20% if the Virginia experience is any guide.

[mamelukesabre]

But obama has the opposite effect on republican voters. So maybe it’s a wash.

[KoRn]

Too bad that chart is irrelevant. Newt won’t be on the ballot in November.

That leaves us with 0bama, and 0bama-lite.

[GlockThe Vote]

You would have to shoot me, chain me to a wall, run me over w a steamroller, shoot a nuke in my hood to get me from not voting this communist demon out of office in November

[GlockThe Vote]

This guy links his 2010 article in the article itself. I hate Romney, but I am ABO.

You could put up BTK killer, oj, BTK killer, vandersloot, madoff, whoever, I will vote to oust the usurper.

[muawiyah]

Whatever boost Obama gives you’ll lose all of that and then some ~ historic low turnout fur shur!

[paul51]

I’ll see your 40 and bet 46....zero is that bad. Although I wish it were newt, it won’t make any difference who heads the ticket. By Nov people will be flat out angry and disgusted.

[SoConPubbie]

Too bad that chart is irrelevant. Newt won’t be on the ballot in November.

That leaves us with 0bama, and 0bama-lite.

You don't know that, only God knows that, and for you to spread that kind of nonsense on FreeRepublic is reprehensible, not to mention you are now a surrender Monkey!

[butterdezillion]

If it looks like Obama will lose in a landslide he’ll make sure we don’t have an election rather than try to steal it. They can only steal it if the polls allow it.

[piytar]

What’s the difference between the feds coercing people into performing abortions against their will and a STATE coercing people into performing abortions against their will?

Actually there is a huge difference. You can move from a state freely. That's the whole point of our federal system: States can experiment with (even really bad) stuff, and people can vote with their feet. Leaving the US is a whole different thing.

That said, RomneyCare did lay the groundwork for ObamaCare - including mandated abortions - and for that I can't forgive Romney.

[rcrngroup]

That is a great chart! Odumb0/Romney positions versus Newt! Go Newt! As Winston Churchill said, Don’t ever, ever, ever, ever give up (or something like that!)

[GonzoGOP]

I don't agree on the 40 state sweep and don't consider it productive to speculate, but I do consider this a very strong year for the GOP

Not likely, but not impossible either. At the moment Romney has 48% of registered voters. GOP traditionally better among likely, but we only have the numbers for registered. There is 8% undecided, and undecided break for the challenger 80/20. Even in years where the challenger gets creamed. So adding his 48% to the likely 6.4% from the undecided an you get 54.4%. In 1980 Reagan only got 50.75%. And that was a 44 state slaughter. The numbers are nearly identical to 1988, and that was also a 40 state pounding for the Dems.

I don't think the numbers will hold after Obama cuts lose on Romney. But to be honest can he say anything worse about Romney that we already have? I mean if he said Romney supported murdering babies most of the people on this forum would point out that they have been saying that for several years now. How much worse can Romney suck than he already does?

[SoFloFreeper]

The 2012 election is all about Barack Obama. For such a vain narcissist, Barack Obama sure is trying to get out of the spotlight on this one. That shows how little chance he really has.

Big time. I totally disagree with the notion Obama and Romney are the same...Romney can be pushed to the right--Rush Limbaugh and Daniel Henninger of the Wall Street Journal have been saying that for a while. Obama cannot.

Obama hates Israel. Romney doesn't.

Obama hates capitalism. Romney is a capitalist, whatever else he may be.

Yeah, Romney has some paternalism in him...but heck, so did Ronald Reagan (did you see Ann Coulter's link to Reagan's 1987 plans for "Catastrophic" national health insurance?)....this doesn't mean he is an Alinsky Disciple.

Of course Romney needs to have a strong conservative House and Senate holding him in check...but I'd rather take my chances at a Romney White House and a couple of Republican houses of Congress than the Obamaphiles and two Democrat houses....hell, look what happened to the Republic from 2009 to 2011.