Posted on 02/18/2015 12:43:12 PM PST by TangledUpInBlue
The 3.8 percent point margin by which President Obama defeated Mitt Romney in 2012 clouds the challenge the Republicans face in 2016. Unless they are able to improve their standing by 5 to 6 points in the key electoral states, they cannot win.
Romney got 206 electoral votes (carrying his closest state, North Carolina, by only 2.2 points). To add to this total, much less to bring it up to the 271 needed to win, Republicans must carry a number of states where they lost by five or more points in 2012.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
OH-OH< Dick Morris, Walker is screwed !
“Okay, seriously, if the left believes that they are going to get black males between the ages of 18 - 45 to turn out to vote for an old white woman...they are just nuts.”
Voluntarily, no. But they will be harangued by their elders and neighborhood activists to go vote Dem.
Voter fraud, and probably much more telling, Mitt Romney defeated Mitt Romney, by never carrying the fight TO the record of the Current Occupant, which was plain for all to see.
Yet Romney could never sufficiently differentiate between the signature “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”, and the Massachusetts plan, in any meaningful way.
Foreign policy is supposed to be off limits in any Presidential debate, but the difference here was having a rational policy and none whatsoever, a distinction that again Romney could not bring himself to make clear.
Perhaps we should not let the debates be run by the democrat party media?
It comes sown to this: Is the GOP going to send us another RINO that no one is enthusiastic for or will we get someone with the vision to be more than a DemocRat Lite candidate.
What states are they in? What states had more votes for a conservative candidate in the past than they had for Romney in 2012?
bump
IIRC the young black male vote in 2012 went a little under 20 points for Romney.
But regardless, in an era where voting behavior is driven at significant levels by identity and not ideology or policy, it’s hard to say what difference it all will make.
Without Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, the GOP can’t win.
BS
Every race is different.
When Reagan won 49 state landslides the same could of been said about the Democrats. But time moves on and the candidates change.
When we finally get a REAL conservative running again, the silent majority will finally speak up again.
Of the 12 ‘debates’ Republicans have tentatively scheduled for 2016, at least seven will be hosted by enemedia, and Fox will also likely have more than one liberal controlling the content.
Wisconsin has went RAT for potus for many years, but Walker has won statewide 3 times in 4 years.
Nobody in WI would call him a moderate, the left hates him with a passion.
Perhaps that is proof that a conservative POTUS nominee can win in states the rats take for granted?
A conservative wouldn’t lose a single state that Romney won, but might pick up 4-5 that he lost.
Plus, Hillary is going to benefit from what I call “The V Factor.” (You can guess what that “V” stands for)
Obama won women by a pretty large margin, and I can see Hillary doing even better. Given that more women vote than men (who tend to reliably vote Republican, albeit not as lopsided as women vote Dim), this could be an issue.
Don’t forget tho that most, possibly close to all, of those 4 million Conservaltive voters didn’t go to the polls because the effort to turn them out (a big voter-targeting software system named “Orca”) crashed on election day, without any real backup.
There were good stories on that, as well as the Dem’s targeting/turnout systems (Narwal/Catalist) on both Breitbart and PJMedia a last year. I’ll see if I can find them. They were really fascinating insights into how voters are targeted on almost industrial level.
Also, the GOP used a brand spanking new system to drive GOP turnout this year. I read somewhere that it was credited (among other things) with McConnell’s surprise 15-point victory over Grimes in KY and Ed Gillespie’s near miss against Warner in VA.
The way they are going, it will be 8 - 10 million in 2016.
Yep. Americans like a winner and a fighter. that will get him conservative votes as well as “mindless middle” votes. And it will scare the left so they’ll stay away because, secretly, they like a winner too.
“The Dems aren’t going to get the same numbers they got without Obama ... “
I agree 100%. The only way we give away 2016 is by running Bush. If Clinton runs, she could get a bit higher turnout from women, but I don’t think that’s going to make up for O-Ha-Ha’s minority draw. She’ll have issues to say the least.
If Bush runs, you may as well give it to the Dems. I just can’t see him winning ... the moonbat left will come out in full force based on his name alone + the conservative base will stay home again.
Cruz or Walker would look great debating Hillary. More importantly, they’d be able to throttle her on her ideas, not just her run down, Star Wars Emperor looks. She has no self control and her shrill voice and tired, trite, 1960s message will seem both rehearsed and antiquated next to Cruz or Walker’s platform.
I really hope the hag is getting plastic surgery ... that’ll be a sight to see :-).
No, not good news at all.
Tells me gerrymandering is all that stands between us being completely overrun by the Taker Class.
Yet another reason that Scott Walker is the best logical choice.
100%
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.