I think we'd be looking at a Democratic landslide, not just with the White House, but one that would carry over to the Congress, Senate and Governorships as well.

Senate. He has too many inconvenient family members.

So does Obama, and it didn't matter for him.  Obama had/has so many things in his past, I really can't see why anything from Rubio's would make anymore difference than Obama's past made for him.

lol this will be like Romney's attempts to turn Minnesota blue.

And Republicans never thought North Carolina or Indiana would turn blue.  Don't discount the possibility, or even the probability.  If they have the right candidate, and if the Republicans go with the same old same old, this could happen.

Moderate white male with conservative hispanic running mate.

That won't work.  The minority has to be at the top of the ticket or they don't win.

[they will not win another presidential election ever again]

Marco Rubio.

In 2016, the Republican Party has to nominate someone who is not Generic White Male.  They also need to completely alter their position on several key issues, such as immigration, gay rights, abortion, the war on drugs, state-sanctioned torture...just to name a few.  They have got to move to the center, or even slightly to the left in some cases, on social issues, while continuing to push conservative economic policies, and they must distance themselves 100% from the Tea Party.  The current electorate--which will be around for decades to come, and in increasing quantities--will not elect a Republican who does not represent them on social issues, and currently the Republican Party does not.  If they go with another Mitt Romney, George W. Bush, or some other establishment candidate who only represents less than half of the electorate (white males), Republicans will not win.

If the Republican Party fails to go with a minority as the nominee (not the VP pick--the nominee), and if they fail to make any drastic changes in their positions, they will not win another presidential election ever again (barring an extremely unlikely, unforeseen, desperate--and only temporary--political climate).

2004: George W. Bush (R)
2008: John McCain (R)
2012: Gary Johnson (L)

This will not happen.

True, but that's not the point.  Everything on this entire board is hypothetical.  Now post your map

I remember in 2008, people said this could be a swing state, or that it could be close.

We don't need West Virginia when we have Virginia

Quite true.  Nor do you need any number of states as long as you've got that one.  The Republicans lost it in 2008 because they assumed it was safe, which just happens to be the same reason they lost the general election this year, and why they'll continue to lose national elections until they make serious and massive changes to their establishment, platform and strategy, as well as kick this whole Tea Party nonsense to the curb.  And frankly, they deserve to lose if they can't accomplish those changes, and I certainly won't support them if they don't.

And I got off topic...anyway, WV...

What's his baggage?

Anyway, show me one politician who doesn't have some.

Clinton - 281
Rice - 257

Clinton - 303
Romney - 235

Cuomo - 271
Christie - 267

[has]

There was a poll released this summer that said among Latinos Rubio would only get Romney minimally more support than Romney was already getting from that group of people.

That doesn't mean much though.  Polls that early into things (yes, summer before an election is still very early...) don't mean anything.

Anyway, yes Rubio would've been the better choice.  He certainly would have helped in Florida, and I think elsewhere too.  It would've erased the perception that Republicans now carry of having a problem with minorities and, more specifically, with Hispanic voters.

As it stands now, thanks directly to the Tea Party...and to a lesser extent to Romney and Ryan themselves...Republicans have serious work to do if they ever hope to win another national election.  If they don't make sweeping changes across their platform they will never win another national election again, because without any changes they simply cannot carry the ever-changing, and drastically diverse electorate.  Establishment guys like Mitt Romney and George Bush will never win for the Republicans ever again, and if the party continues with candidates like that they frankly deserve to lose.  Also, Generic (Rich) White Male is probably the worst choice the party can go with next time around.  It has to be a woman or a minority...because making big changes to their platform isn't enough--they have to overcome their image problem as well.

I remember in 2008, people said this could be a swing state, or that it could be close.

Are there any good election games for Mac users?  I loved playing President Forever on my old PC, but it's not available for Mac.

...and I don't want to install some hijacked version of Windows on my Mac or anything like that...

I like to hear/read his explanation for this map.  Ohio is only a small possibility...very, very small.  The slimmest of chances that Romney pulls out a win there.  Recent Colorado polls are admittedly too close to call but seem to be tilting back toward Obama's favor, after having been in Romney's column for about a month.  New Hampshire probably won't go to Romney, even though it'll be close; polls just don't suggest it.

I would say he's probably correct about Virginia, North Carolina and Florida all going to Romney though.

EDIT: Nevermind, I'm reading his explanation now.  Still not sure I buy it though...

This is not at all a close election.

Sure, it's extremely close in all national polls, most even showing Romney in the lead.  But electorally, Obama's reelection is almost a sure fire probability.  Romney leads nationally slightly, while Obama leads in the states he needs to win in order to be reelected...not a close election.

I think Morris is only a little wrong.  The new battleground states of Vermont, Rhode Island, and California are the new swing states.  Every poll I've seen shows them all as very close, tied, or even a slight Romney lead.

I would be very shocked.

This election is Obama's to lose.  The Republicans, I think, could have won this year, and probably very easily, due to the economy being so poor, but their field of candidates was weak, and the one they ultimately chose was one of the weakest.

We need political leaders who represent everyone, 100% of the US population, not just the rich.

You're never going to get that, no matter the party or the candidate--that type of candidate simply does not nor will it ever exist.

Regarding the rest of your post, the hurricane is not what is going to cost Romney the election; he has been consistently down in the electoral collage, with no real path to victory.  If the hurricane itself were to cost one of the candidates, it would most likely be Obama, due to the fact that the storm will keep many voters from the polls (well, those who haven't already early voted) in states that are close or generally tilting in his direction.  As for Romney's response to the hurricane, I haven't seen anything major in the media that has depicted his response as unsatisfactory.

Obama - 281
Romney - 257

This is 2004 all over again.

Obama will win, even though he shouldn't...just as Bush won, but shouldn't have.  The reason?  The opposing party nominated, in each case, one of the least electable candidates in the running.  Still, I think it will be close and only decided by one state--maybe two...just like in '04.  In the end, things'll swing to the incumbents reelection.

I think it's fun that the latest batch of conservatrolls are just being openly and casually racist at this point.

If that's a reference to my post, I'd just like to point out that I'm looking at this from a sociological viewpoint, not a personal one.  You can't argue that there is not some fraction of people who vote based on petty notions of race, religion, sex instead of actual politics.  It's fact.  I don't like it, but it's true, and pointing it out honestly does not make one racist.  I'm also not saying that I believe that's why Powell endorsed Obama--I just said that it's a possibility--how would I know?  I don't know the guy; for all I know he endorsed Obama because Obama likes waffles.  I, nor you, nor anyone, knows why he truly he endorsed the president.  It could really be due to Obama's stances on the issues; all I'm saying is that no one knows.

My underlying point I was trying to make is that, for those who *are* voting for Obama based on race, I would see that as more a feeling of accomplishment rather than purely about one man's politics--a compelling drive to back that candidate due to how far your race has come through so much adversity.  If it applied to me, I can't say that I wouldn't do the same.

And "conservatrolls?"  I've been here since 2003.  By default, I can't be a troll; I'm also not very conservative

It's true that there are many African Americans who'll vote for Obama simply because he's the first credible African American candidate to ever run for president representing one of the two major parties.  Say what you will, but there are tons of people who vote or are voting on race this year, just as in 2008.  Likewise, there are tons of redneck whites who're voting for anyone but Obama, also because he's black.  There are also tons of people who'll vote against Romney solely because of his religion and nothing to do with his politics--same concept.  It's an unfortunate truth in our society, and it goes both ways.  I wouldn't be surprised if race is playing a part, even if it's not the only reason, behind Powell's backing of Obama (not saying that it is, just that it wouldn't shock me).  It *is* a little flaky to just switch sides suddenly, especially when the switch is made to a candidate sooo far outside of the mainstream of your party and those you've backed in the past.  Something there doesn't add up.

That said, why would anyone be bothered by this?  Put yourself in the opposing viewpoint; the history of your race is mired with slavery, bigotry, etc.  And finally you have real, credible representation at the highest form of our government.  You can't tell me you wouldn't be even a little bit tempted to vote for that person, even if your vote is swayed mostly by race.

Obama--281
Romney--257