Active Users:776 Time:23/12/2024 07:32:14 PM
I would say the math favors Romney over Obama, but it will probably be close either way. - Edit 1

Before modification by Joel at 01/03/2012 03:38:23 PM

My biggest complaint against Obama is that, in a time of economic and strategic crisis, he got the first real electoral mandate since Reagan, with proportionate Congressional allies, but blew that opportunity. He was too busy trying to be a gracious winner and handout corporate bailouts to implement socialism, even though that WAS what he campaigned on and McCain campaigned against. The public stated its preference and Obama failed to deliver what was promised; now he must live with the consequences as surely as they must.
I think Santorum hurt himself (as usual) with his play to Democrats. Obviously, in a general election crossovers are encouraged, but this looked like a ploy to get people who were going to vote Obama in the general election to vote Santorum as a way of denying Romney the win. That is not only desperate, it's also probably the most underhanded play of the whole primary season.

Hard to dispute. He might have seemed less slimy appealing to union or manufacturing labor, or blue collar workers in general. By explicitly recruiting Democrats to vote in the GOP primary, especially after condemning the practice earlier in his career, he just looks as desperate and devious as you say, because he is.

Based on the map, Romney has a good chance to win the Presidency, particularly if a few swing states are mad enough at Obama.

I think both Florida and Ohio are likely to vote Republican, the former because the Jewish vote will either stay home or vote Romney given Obama's stance on Israel and the latter because the economy is worse there than in other areas and the "recovery" has yet to be felt. The whole of the South will likely go Republican (we all know that VA and NC voting for Obama was a complete one-time affair, or rather, anyone who has ever spent time there for an appreciable period knows that). Add in Missouri and it's bye bye Barry (time to open the champagne).

There just are not many places Obama could go if he did not win OH or FL. Romney would sweep the South (except I disagree VA is a gimme,) and adding OH would put him just 17 EVs short. Obama could (and likely will) match that by picking up the Midwest (except for IN and OH,) PA and NM, but then what? The remaining states are VA, NV, CO and NH, all but one of which are likely wins for Romney, and the other (VA) would still leave Obama 4 EVs short.

Incidentally, I do not think VA was a fluke, even though I did think it out of reach for Obama in 2008. He won the state simply because living in MD or DC has become so unappealing and/or impractical for people working in the latter that they are moving to VA in droves. That dynamic has not changed much in the past four years. I do not think Obama can count on Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill and a large black population to give him NC again, but I could easily see him winning VA. The problem is that is not enough; even sweeping the Midwest (again, except IN and OH,) winning PA and NM he would still end up needing a win in NV, CO or NH, none of which seem likely. He may have a shot in NH, and that would be enough, but I would have to say Romney is still the favorite even there.

Things that could further hurt Obama include a stalled recovery, lingering high unemployment (which Bernanke warned about today), perceived US weakness over Iran's nuclear program and/or the Syrian crisis, an overturn of Obamacare in the Supreme Court, or just further missteps in the everyday things.

If Romney is the nominee, Robamacare is essentially irrelevant; Romney can promise to repeal it his first day in office until he is blue in the face, but no one will forget he both invented and wrote a book urging the federal government adopt it. In terms of the Mideast and national security, Obama green lighting the hits on bin Laden and al Awlaki will probably trump his handling of Iran or Syria except with people who have never voted for him and never will. Unless Iran sets off a nuke, that will be a non-issue, rightly or not. I imagine your earlier assessment that the election will turn on the economy remains accurate, and if the recovery is lagging in FL, Romney telling everyone about his four vehicles (including two Caddies) is not helping him much more in OH than it did in MI. Expect that infamous picture of a smiling Romney stuffed with corporate raider money to saturate OH over the next year as unions make their last stand.

As for Ron Paul, I'm surprised you haven't forwarded a conspiracy theory that he's there to divert potential third party supporters from someone else and help get Romney elected, and that he was playing that game from the beginning. Of course, he might be trying to gun for VP or at least some position of influence in a Romney White House. In that sense, you are wrong about saying there's no prize for second place. Historically, there always have been prizes for those sorts of things (George H.W. Bush in 1980, Al Gore in 1992, both Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton in 2008 are the most recent examples I can think of).

Well, a few days ago I did mention that if Ron Paul is angling for the Vice Presidency he is as crazy as everyone thinks, that Romney has learned the lesson of McCain sacrificing his moderate credibility by adding Palin, and Paul would be Palin to the nth degree. Of the VPs you named, how many ultimately won the presidency? Before Bush the last one was Nixon (elected more because of Wallace than anything he did as Ikes VP) or LBJ. The definitive quotes on the Vice Presidency are from Nelson Rockefeller ("I never wanted to be VICE president of anything") and Cactus Jack Garner ("the vice presidency is not worth a bucket of warm shit.")

Return to message