Replies

I agree with you regarding how OH will be the key to winning the presidency in 2012. If Romney carries it, Obama would have to run the table in NH, IA, CO, NV, NM, WI, MN, PA and MI to get reelected (which won’t happen). And if Obama carries OH, then Romney wouldn’t stand a chance in other blue-collar Great Lakes states such as PA, MI, WI and MN (which are less Republican than OH) and would have to win 4 out of 5 of NH, IA, CO, NV, NM (with one of them being CO, unless Romney also wins the ME-02, in which case he could win with NH, IA, NV and NM).

This is one of the reasons why I think that Romney would be foolish not to select Senator Rob Portman of OH as his runningmate. Portman will help him carry OH and would also help him attract blue-collar voters and motivate Evangelical voters in other key states (Portman is a socially conservative Methodist, and is an expert at communicating with working-class voters due to his work experience and political campaigns).

Romney-Portman could garner 350 electoral votes if the election breaks further away from Obama (which is a real possibility). But, more importantly, Romney-Portman can get 270 electoral votes even if it doesn’t.

Prof. Rasmussen is contrived today to make us all look like geniuses reporting in his daily tracking poll that Romney has for the first time hit the 50% mark leaving Obama down at 43%. This puts Obama in a very bad position indeed.

However, I recall reading somewhere yesterday that Rob Portman does not move the needle at all as a vice presidential choice in Ohio. If he cannot help carry the state the choice would have to move elsewhere. I am sure Romney's internals will tell him the answer to this on a precinct by precinct basis. Likewise I think his polling will do the same respecting Santorum's ability to carry Pennsylvania.

My choices are: 1 Rubio 2 Paul Ryan 3 Portman 4 Santorum-and these selections are made without reference to my ideological preferences which would become far more relevant to this process as and when Romney has a comfortable lead above 50% and would certainly change if numbers showed Romney in trouble in Virginia, for example.

>> I agree with you regarding how OH will be the key to winning the presidency in 2012. This is one of the reasons why I think that Romney would be foolish not to select Senator Rob Portman of OH as his runningmate. Portman will help him carry OH and would also help him attract blue-collar voters and motivate Evangelical voters in other key states <<

I agree it may boil down to Ohio in the end. The pattern over the last couple of decades is whoever wins Ohio wins the Presidency, so it's hard to imagine Obama or Romney winning in the rest of the country without taking Ohio.

Portman is an acceptable running mate and I agree from a geographic standpoint it's a good choice, the only issue I have with a Romney-Portman ticket is that it's bland as hell. Take away his Mormonism and Romney's life story is not that interesting, and Portman may ease conservative's concerns but in the end, he's boring and won't take the luster off Obama's "historic" Presidency. The media will paint the GOP ticket as two old guard establishment WASPs, even though Romney is a Mormon (just as claimed the traditional Catholic Rick Santorum was the "evangelical" candidate)

The other issue is Portman is brand new to the Senate, a freshman Senator with less than 2 years under his belt (and this is his first time holding statewide office), so I'm not sure his pull in the state is strong enough to ensure his candidacy would move the state in the GOP column. Barack Obama is going to run a much more aggressive campaign than Lee Fisher did. It's a good idea to pick a running mate from a "must win" swing state, but I'd prefer one who a powerhouse figure in the state and beloved among voters.