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 ...
Oh, but they were informed. They were informed by Romney's character assassination campaign ads. They were informed by the MSM of the phony scandals against his opponents. They were informed by GOP-elite ass kissers like Rove, Coulter and Hannity that Romney was the one and the others were scandal-ridden.
They were informed.
I am hoping Romney will continue to be a “flexible” politician. In Massachusetts he was wearing the liberal jacket. I would not be surprised if he dons the “right centrist” jacket if elected president. He can sense where the wind is blowing. If he turns to be a core conviction liberal, we are in trouble. I am hoping he will continue his reputation as a flip-flopping flexible politician and turn rightwards.
I still stand by my prediction that Obama will get blown out; he's a failure and he and his voters know it.
Romney wins easily with over 300 EV’s. The best Romney has going for him is that Obama is the worst POTUS in American history, period.
See his later posts on this thread. He wasn't being truthful.
Perhaps. Personally, I think that Romney, if he wins the election, will go with his instincts for statist solutions and actually wants some conflict with conservatives so he can posture himself as the reasonable moderate who is unafraid to anger the extremist conservatives. Line up the RINOs and Democrats and he doesn't need conservatives.
The Romney family has been fighting conservatism since the days of Goldwater. I doubt it will change in the near future.
In the long run, if you see Obama win re-election, you will have more liberal entitlement programs, more disability/welfare, more of everything the liberal agenda entails. The paradigm will shift yet again, and socialism will become the center. In 1992, the whole “Dont Ask Dont Tell” policy was considered a compromise, now it is considered an out of mainstream far right position. We lost by losing, which is always what happens.
It is crazy to me that you muster more antipathy toward Romney for what you think he might do on Day 1, then what Obama HAS done on Day 1. You think you are going to get Sarah Palin or John Bolton in 2016 if Romney loses? Nope, you are going to get Michael Bloomberg if Romney loses. Both parties always move to the center following a loss.
There is no re-do, there is no punishment to those who nominate the candidate you didn’t prefer. They most certainly will not “learn their lesson” if you support Obama for spite. They will become apathetic and move more to the left. If you want instead to move the country to its roots on the right, you need to make winning a habit.
I agree.
Bingo. There were about 30 primaries before Santorum dropped out. The opportunity was there to vote for Santorum or Gingrich.
I live in Utah and the Utah primary is the last primary election in the country. I still plan on voting. It will be interesting to see who is on the ballot (Romney for sure, Santorum? Gingrich - maybe, unless he never paid the bounced check...)
It's a sad realization for America that romney had mega $$ support and verbal support and a Patriot like Newt had to make plans day by day because of little support. They don't love America only want what she stands for and no fight in them to keep it.
True to an extent. Santorum dropped out because after the Wisconsin loss, money donations to his campaign vanished. I’m pretty sure the same thing happened to Gingrich, only much much earlier (when he said that the South would vote for him and actually that didn’t happen after Georgia.) And after Delaware last week, I do believe Gingrich was out of luck in regards to monetary donations.
If you look through my historical threads I’ve never advocated Christie for any federal office; I understand that he is the solution to problems many states don’t have. For a liberal northeastern state, he is an absolute fascist (in a good way).
Until someone has lived here and watched their property taxes increase $500 to $600 annually, I take their opinions of him with a grain of salt.
Auh2orepublican correctly pointed out that I forgot Florida. IMHO, Romney is the slight favorite there.
One thing no one remembers is that Obama almost carried Georgia and Montana in the last election. With Georgia, it was obviously a huge turnout in inner-city Atlanta. I don’t know what happened in Montana. John McCain and Sarah Palin had natural appeal there as westerners.
Think of Obama as the carbonized crumbs of a slice of burnt toast. You know, the black, crunchy stuff that you shake out.
I'm not saying to take him lightly, GOD NO. But he's done, unless video of Mitt eating uncooked aborted fetuses while on a coke binge appears.
If Romney should be the nominee, I will seriously consider ... not at this point promise ... to consider a write-in vote for President. Down-ticket, I have already searched out the most conservative available.
I vote in Maine, so this time around, my vote actually counts, as we are poised for a counter-revolution spurred by universal dislike of our RINO-Girl Senatrices.
Well, I guess that’s progess, sorta.
Santorum $pent TOO much for his lust to LIE about NEWT. And he started his lies during the debates in the after reports right after the debates which cost him nothing but cost him any support from me thereafter.
In that case, I don’t see the Republicans standing up to 0bama any more then than they are doing now. Do you?
Of course! They’d have to out of sheer political necessity. If you are going to be the opposition party, you must oppose or else have no reason for existing.
Well, the republicans are doing a poor job so far.
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.