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 ...
That is why we must focus on congress. We all look for impeachment proceedings to emergy, but they won’t. Not unless we get a congress with some steel balls. And that also means changing the ‘core’ of the Republican elite, which we have failed to accomplish.
We’re cooked no matter what. If Romney wins, his job will only be to make socialism more palatable to the conservative base. Where 0bama is the hard push, Romeny is the velvet glove.
Play this silly little game and answer your own question:
Lucifer or Baal for President
Which do you choose and what do you do?
The Convention has yet to occur ... and Romney is yet to be selected ... we need a Rocky Road Pinochet ... not artificially flavored Vanilla Tasty Freeze in a crappy cone.
Quandary time. I doubt even a Republican Congress could control a 2d term Obama ... the question remains, "Could they swing Romney to starboard."
Now it appears that the late Richard M. Nixon erred again in 1960, when he declined to challenge voter fraud in IL, MO, and TX, even though Maurice Stans raised the funds for a challenge. Nixon, another presidential failure, wanted to avoid the “sore loser” tag so he could run and win in 1968.
The elites haven’t entirely nominated Ropmney: it’s the uninformed primary voters who have done this.
Many “pro-life” people for years have been voting for abortion candidates for the state legislature, U.S. House, U.S. Senate, and governor, even as the GOP presidential nominees bore nominal “pro-life” tags. They still are voting for abortion candidates; many are too uninformed to know the difference.
Sometimes I still have trouble believing where we are. Last summer, I didn't think Romney would be a threat at ALL. I figured, after the elections of 2010, a joker like him would be the last person we'd have to worry about.
Just WTH....
Interesting response.
Yes, but these laws have actually passed and will most likely still be on the books come November. Democrats are already crying about these laws hurting their "get out the vote (fraud)" efforts.
Continue to bring as much focus as I can on the non-negotiable, indispensable first principles of the republic.
Try to convince those who call themselves conservatives that if they want the republic to survive they MUST NOT compromise those non-negotiable principles for anyone or for any politically expedient reasons.
Gather together all of those who have made such a commitment to core American principle into a cogent, coherent, permanent, potent political force for good.
Continue to fight on every front, with every resource we have, without wavering, until we win or God takes us home.
-- Winston Churchill"Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."
Have you been paying attention lately? The breaucracy has been running wild with the 'Executive Orders', and the 'As The Secretary May Direct' decisions.
Another four years of this crap, and we're cooked.
Costing us dearly how? And you think Obama's been holding back? He's tried to do 100% of what he wants to do. The only thing stopping him from doing more is the gridlock. What would be the point of holding back in his first term when he doesn't know if he'll get a second term? His actions show he's trying to do everything he can while he has power. But it isn't possible with the post-2010 gridlock and the bad economy dogging him. Something like cap-and-trade could have been passed if the economy was good, but not now.
Each person has to make his own decision. I, for one, am holding my nose and supporting Romney, not because he’s “the lesser of two evils,” but as a way of *limiting evil* (i.e., defeating Obama and all the evil he would impose upon us). Father Frank Pavone analyzed the distinction here, in the context of the right to life: http://www.priestsforlife.org/vote/votingwithclearconscience.htm#choosing
I was being sarcastic. Look at my posting history.
FUBO!!!
I was being sarcastic. I will vote for Romney as I grit my teeth.
Thanks, dixiechick
Yeah, but since you didn't use a sarcasm tag, that post will get referenced again and again as proof that FReepers are supporting Obama.
Yeah, but since you didn’t use a sarcasm tag, that post will get referenced again and again as proof that FReepers are supporting Obama.
I will not be dictated to as to who I vote for. I will vote for Romney with gritted teeth.
Ah, so you'll make a misleading post to make it seem like the Romney critics are actually Obama voters.
I will not be dictated to as to who I vote for. I will vote for Romney with gritted teeth.
Well, do so honestly.
An extreme radical like Van Jones or Eric Holder would never get through the confirmation process - even the weak-kneed Republicans (and moderate Democrats) would fight that. However, in all likelihood, the weak-kneed Republicans won't fight a nominee of the President of their party and the Democrats will fall in line since they are getting someone with a similar ideology. With either Romney or Obama will probably get a Kagan or Sotomayor.
We need to pray that the four conservatives (and Kennedy) on the court stay healthy until the next bleak four-year period ends. The problem is that if Romney wins, he'll probably run for a second term (effectively freezing out a conservative alternative), so the bleak period will last for eight years (either eight years of Romney or four years of Romney followed by four years of the new Democrat President).
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.