Talk Elections

With the GOP's lose of New Mexico and NM's related demographics, Mitt Romney's path to 270 involves winning states that haven't voted for a Republican since 1988.

So, what kind've person would vote for Mitt Romney after not voting for H.W. 92, Dole, Bush 00, Bush 04 or John McCain? Why is Mitt Romney a better candidate than those guys?

That assumption is errant - with the possible exception of NH this time, which Mittens is far better positioned to win than the other guys. 

The fact that states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Iowa are experiencing the brunt of our recent economic downturn, I think that Romney will play well to white, working class (traditionally unionized) voters who are not fans of Obama's economic policies.  However, Romney can do this while using his moderate record to social issues to appeal to young professionals and suburbanites.

If Romney plays his cards right, he will win the election in a walk--with big wins in the South, a massive swing towards Republicans in the Industrial Midwest and to a lesser extent the Northeast while his Mormon religion helps him out west in states like Colorado and Nevada.  

For someone with such a (relatively) high approval rating, President Obama is one of the weakest incumbents in over 30 years.  His record on the economy and energy are in conflict, to say the very least, and he has failed to seize the opportunity to redefine American foreign policy goals in a post-Iraq world.  

Between Romney's moderate record, his chameleon abilities, his deep warchest and the undoubted support he will receive from Wall Street and other Super PACs 2012 is Romney's to lose.

If Romney carries all the states that went for Bush in 2000 AND 2004 (so that doesn't include NM, IA or NH) he ends up with 281, which means he can drop NV or CO and still win

How's he polling with hispanics compared to Bush? Colorado and Nevada aren't all that viable for Mitt.

I'm not saying he is favored to win CO or NV, just pointing out that both voted for Bush both times. But if Romney picked up either IA or NH (both of which voted for Bush Jr. once), plus all the other Bush Jr. states, minus CO AND NV, he still wins.

I am just pointing out that he has various paths through states that have voted for the GOP in the last five elections. The key to all of it is OH and FL. There is no path without winning both

This is a too static view of the race. Let me present a more dynamic view:

We are now entering the late Spring/Summer season. The first two years of this decade each saw multiple disasters break out during this season, and this year it looks very possible that it will happen again. In the Spring of 2010, the economy appeared to be recovering until the outbreak of the Euro Crisis initiated the 'flash crash'. This was swiftly followed by the months-long industrial disaster in the Gulf of Mexico from the Deepwater Horizon platform. Then in the Spring of 2011, a tranquil winter was followed by upheavals in the Middle East that sharply raised the price of oil, the tsunami and nuclear disaster in Japan, the debt ceiling debacle, and the re-occurrence of the Euro crisis. While except for [in half-part] the debt ceiling crisis I do not blame the President for these disasters they will have an effect on the election sufficient to nullify any certainties that can be made today based on marginal analysis of swing states. Today we are in another period of relative tranquility but the trials of the season are already looming large: an Irsaeli strike on Iran potentially igniting a region-wide uprising against US/Israeli imperialism, a re-occurrence of the Euro-crisis after the current government in Greece falls, and a Supreme Court decision that could at once focus the nation's attention on an issue that ignites the Republican base and destroys in one fell swoop the President's primary domestic policy initiative.

In short, these kinds of analyses best wait until the Fall.

You're right that these people have been hit hardest by the recession and dislike Obama (often intensely), but Romney is pretty much the worst possible candidate to appeal to them. He won't be able to connect with them unless he can stop making rich guy gaffes.


That conflicts with what you just said about working class white voters, who are generally socially conservative and non-professional, and who've historically voted Democratic on economic issues. Romney's biggest problems so far have really come from trying to talk out of both sides of his mouth. You do realize that when he does that, he's writing Obama's attack ads for him, right?


Colorado is less that 3% Mormon. Nevada is about 11%, but most of them are Republicans anyway. Latinos are a much bigger group in both states, and Romney looks likely to lose them by an even bigger margin than McCain did.


Then why are bin Laden and Gaddafi dead?


In American politics, "chameleon abilities" are a weakness, not a strength. Just ask John Kerry.

Unless you can get away with it, without getting caught. Just ask Bill Clinton.

The problem with the thread is that it only mentions one state.

The short answer is that in order to get from here to 51%, Romney has to (among other things for sure) pull a rabbit out of his hat with Hispanics. He also has to pull a neat trick of winning border hawks while simultaneously winning Hispanics. He did this successfully in Florida and probably NV (sample was too small to be measured in the exit poll). This began to come apart in Arizona against Rick Santorum, who did better amongst hispanics despite being more hawkish on the border. If anyon can walk a tight rope of nuance in this race, it is Romney. He is also the most likely to stumble while doing it thanks to a gaffe and look completely transparent as well.

Did you seriously just compare Romney to Bill Clinton?

What are you talking about? All of those states have lower unemployment than the national average. Iowa, in particular, has one of the lowest rates in the nation. The farm belt is booming.

http://www.bls.gov/lau/

No, I was contrasting Clinton's abiltiy to bs his way to victory with the transparency of a Kerry or even yes a Romney.

That is why in a chose election, but for AZ, I assume Mittens will lose all the states with substantial numbers of Hispanics that are otherwise close, with Florida being a special case with the Cubans, and for that matter, a lot of other non-Mexican Hispanics.

I really don't think that is true anymore.  It was through the 1980's.

It obviously too early, but that change with Rubio on the ticket.


Because of a long term effort for the former.  The latter might give us substantially greater problems in the Maghreb.

Labor force has been dropping:

PA is about 75K less than 1/2009

IA, about 35K less than 1/2009

OH, about 160K less.

Not sure how many of us there are who fit that.  I voted for Clinton in 92 and 96, and for a third-party candidate in 2000, and for Obama in 2008.  Except for 2004, when I supported Bush, I fit your description pretty well.  I'd venture a guess that I may be the best fit for your description among the posters herein, so I'll give it a go:

Mitt Romney is a hard sell.  I didn't vote for him in the primary election, and he's not necessarily a better candidate than any of those whom you have named.  It's just that I'm all for displacing Obama--not because I don't like him.  I still think he's a fairly ethical character--I'm just keen on repealing the PPACA.  That said, I'm finding Willard harder and harder to take seriously.  Oh, I'll probably vote for him, once he's nominated, if he's nominated, and I'm pretty confident about the GOP taking both chambers of congress, but increasingly I don't really see him defeating Obama in a head-to-head contest.

I suspect it'll come down to a referendum on Obama, rather than a true contest between the President and whatever dregs the GOP runs against him.  At the moment, I'm all for the devil we don't know yet, and at the moment, that devil happens to be Willard Mitt Romney.  I'd rather it were Jesus or Gandhi or somebody like that, but sometimes you just get Candidate B.  And Candidate B will, ultimately, have to dance with the one that brought him to the dance.  He can play etch-a-sketch all day every day while Washington burns, for all I care, so long as he signs the repeal of the PPACA when it comes across his desk.  I think he'll do that. 

What would you rather we replace the PPACA with? Would you rather go back to the mess we had before (though to be fair it's still a mess with the PPACA)?

Some things like not being able to deny people with a pre-existing condition and letting people stay on their parent's plans till they are 26 (while they may be in internships without full benefits or in college or grad school at smaller universities that don't provide coverage) are a good thing, no?

sbane- probably because of the individual mandate. I support the individual mandate, but have no religious or intrinsic attachment to it. I support it only as a means to an ends- firstly because no reform would be possible without addressing the free rider problem (hence the necessity of a mandatory tax to pay for the increased generosity of coverage under the law), and secondly as a means of expanding coverage to everyone.

However, if some other way can be found of reaching the same ends with different means, then I think there'd not be a lot of resistance to further reform. In fact, as a supporter of the law I'd much rather find a way of achieving the same ends with means that so many fellow citizens are not so strongly opposed to. In the long run, a law will not be sustained by one party alone, because there will come a time, sooner or later, when the other party is in full power. True, final health care reform must be bipartisan. The verdict of Bill Kristol's 1993 memo must be reversed. Policy must prevail over partisan politics- not just as a matter of normative rightness but as a matter of practicality.

In other words, opponents of (specific parts of) PPACA or specific policies designed as means to achieve particular ends, which could be achieved in other ways, are not lost even if it is not struck down and Obama is reelected. The only ones truly lost are the ones who support the forever perpetuation of the status quo, because as the years go by it becomes increasingly clear that it is unsustainable. The policy options aren't "PPACA" vs. "no PPACA", the future policy options as numerous as the universe of choices the courts will not strike down. And since neither the current status quo nor the pre-2010 status quo addresses all of the problems that need to be addressed, we should be looking forward to those options.

I am a strong supporter of the individual mandate, but like you the end matters more to me than the means. I just don't see how else you go about it. I guess you can give people a year to enroll in health plans even with pre-existing conditions and then go back to the system we have now where there is a waiting period to cover pre-existing  conditions if you are joining a health plan after having been uninsured for a long period of time. It's not ideal, but could be acceptable as long as there is a campaign to advise people about the window where they can join a health plan with pre-existing conditions. An individual mandate is in place in many countries and they haven't descended into tyranny.

A heavily regulated insurance market with a required list of conditions and procedures to be covered should be mandated (but only basic services so perhaps no contraception or viagra coverage), with the opportunity to purchase supplemental insurance if you wish to. Also people should be given more flexibility on the sort of plan they want to choose. If they want to choose a plan with a deductible of $6,000, then they should be allowed to. Yes, some who don't have that sort of money will foolishly sign up for it, but we can't babysit people all the time. I also don't think it would be wise to abandon the employer provided insurance system for now. They just contribute too much into the healthcare system to be taken out of it overnight. And of course employers should only be mandated to cover the basic level of coverage. If you wish to purchase the supplemental, it has to be out of pocket.

Bush 2004 + New Hampshire (which voted Republican in 2000 and is probably a tossup at worst for Romney right now)- Iowa - New Mexico - Colorado - Nevada = 270.


Well, it would be okay for them to have voted for Bush in 2004 since Romney can generally do worse than that and still win.  So, someone who thought the economy was doing bad in 1992, good in 1996, bad in 2000, bad in 2008, and bad in 2012.


He's not, but the alternatives are arguably even worse candidates.

sbane, there are probably some good things.

I'm against the mandate for sure, but more importantly I'm against exacerbating extant problems.  Some folks think that we're paying too big a share of our aggregate GDP for medical or health-related expenses.  It's something like 16 or 17%.  I think it has to do with inefficiencies, and to the extent that this bill deals with that problem, it's a good idea, but this bill will increase the share of aggregate GDP that we spend.  Generally, however, I agree with Beet's analysis.  I'd go further and say I hope that in the long run such issues don't always divide along party lines.  As it is now, a Democrat can serve up a warm, steaming bowl of sh()it and call it delicious, and all Democrats will say, "yes, this is good" and all Republicans will say, "No, it's horrible and it stinks."  Same for Republicans and vice-versa.  Shouldn't be that way.  

More importantly, if you're into enacting a public medical system, it could be done, but this isn't what the poorly-named Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act does.  The ppaca is a cluge of stopgap measures that will increase the budget deficit by $560 billion.  The exact figure is a moving target:  Republicans put it a 700 billion over the first ten years and Democrats put it at 230 billion.  Obviously it depends upon what assumptions one makes.  I think it was meant to provide insurance to the uninsured, but even there it fails since it leaves 23 million people uninsured who are allowed to opt out of the mandate.  (Some, but not others can actually opt out.  Equal treatment for all??!)

Anyway, I'm all for its repeal, and I think a majority GOP congress with a President Romney could do that.  I just have a hard time imagining a scenario in which Obama doesn't defeat Romney.


 

Yeah, I have a question for Romney supporters: Why?

1.  He can defeat Obama.

2.  He's not as extreme as the three other candidates.

1.  More accurately, he has a better chance than the others.

2.  True, but only by default:  if you have no philosophy, then you are not extreme.

Because of his opposition, both on electability and fitness grounds. Period. And the only state Romney needs to win that has not gone Pub since 1988 is NH. And Obama 2012 is not Obama 2008, nor Clinton. The end.

Going to have to have Obama really tank for that to happen...


Yeah, true. It's tough to be extreme when you don't believe in a thing.

Bush didn't need NM to win in 2000 and 2004, so why does Romney?

This.

It's simply unfathomable that a president can win re-election with unemployment in excess of 8% and gas above $4/gallon at any point during his re-election year. This is not f'ing Europe, for Pete's sake. America does not reward mediocrity.

The key is FL. There is probably no way to win without it. I think there's a possibility of winning without OH, though. It would have to be 2000-close, though, and would include picking off IA and NV along with either WI or CO.

()

And consumers aren't worried about gas prices. They're worried about them leading to inflation, which is staying in check.


Thanks for pointing out the obvious. We aren't Europe. Did you know that gravity causes things to fall to the ground?

Funny, because I remember John Kerry somehow almost beating a president with unemployment below 5%, gasoline below $2/gallon, the country in the middle of a war that rallied many to the cause of the Commander-in-Chief, and a nation that was strongly against a social position that Kerry's home state adopted (i.e., gay marriage).

I also remember a guy named Bill Clinton who won re-election by engaging in the most impressive performance of triangulation in the history of politics.

How many people voted for FDR 80 years ago and are still alive/voting (Chicago does not count)?


Do you want a latte with that? Are you serious? Of course people are pissed about gas prices. They do not like seeing more and more of their disposable income go towards gas. Food prices are starting to creep up as a result of rising transportation costs. You obviously do not buy your own groceries if you have not noticed this.


Thanks for pointing out the obvious. We aren't Europe. Did you know that gravity causes things to fall to the ground?
[/quote]

The way some of you think European conditions are conducive to an American president winning re-election, I am beginning to wonder if you think America is the New Europe.

If we need to stick Rubio on the ticket, so be it.

I agree with this, but Bush won NH in 2000.