How many Obama States will the GOP/Tea Party Alliance Target

[UpcomingYouthvoter]

All the moderates in my lifetime either lost (Dole, McCain) or failed to continue the Reagan legacy (HW) or couldn't win the popular vote (W)

W won the popular vote in 2004 but your right about his 2000 performance. 

[Mopsus]

All the moderates in my lifetime either lost (Dole, McCain) or failed to continue the Reagan legacy (HW) or couldn't win the popular vote (W)

1: All of those men are mainstream conservatives, not moderates.
2: You mentioned the "Reagan legacy". The article to which I provided a link discusses the "Reagan legacy". Would you read be so kind as to read it for me?

[pbrower2a]

Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are all Likely Dem, no matter who the GOP nominates and only flip in the event of a total Dem electoral failure. Sure, some of these states are winnable for moderate Republicans, but no one like that exists in the GOP field.

All winnable by a conservative. Must i remind you that Reagan won all of thise states mut MN twice. We indeed have a Reagan conservative in the race. Ron Paul. Mitt is a moderate not a conservative and that's why he will not be the nominee.

Minnesota is one of the least "swingy" states. The state was the best state for Mondale and the second-best  for McGovern. Michigan has too large an African-American population to vote for a Republican nominee (see Maryland for a similar state in voting).  Scott Walker has made a mess in Wisconsin, where his dictatorial style has inspired recall elections for his legislative associates and, when the time arises (January 2012) for himself. Pennsylvania showed in 2010 that it can vote for a pure Corporatist -- but 2012 won't be like 2010.

Sure, a complete meltdown by the President could result in a Republican ousting him from the White House... but barring a diplomatic or military debacle, a personal scandal (including a sex scandal, for which this President obviously lacks the leeway that Bill Clinton had), or an economic meltdown for which the Republicans are held blameless, this President will be re-elected. It's going to take the "new Ronald Reagan" to defeat him, and there is no "new Ronald Reagan" who would have a chance of winning all the states that you mention.

If George W. Bush could be re-elected, then Barack Obama, who has blundered far less and less severely and is a far-more-effective campaigner, will be re-elected.   

[Mr.Phips]

Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are all Likely Dem, no matter who the GOP nominates and only flip in the event of a total Dem electoral failure. Sure, some of these states are winnable for moderate Republicans, but no one like that exists in the GOP field.

All winnable by a conservative. Must i remind you that Reagan won all of thise states mut MN twice. We indeed have a Reagan conservative in the race. Ron Paul. Mitt is a moderate not a conservative and that's why he will not be the nominee.

Minnesota is one of the least "swingy" states. The state was the best state for Mondale and the second-best  for McGovern. Michigan has too large an African-American population to vote for a Republican nominee (see Maryland for a similar state in voting).  Scott Walker has made a mess in Wisconsin, where his dictatorial style has inspired recall elections for his legislative associates and, when the time arises (January 2012) for himself. Pennsylvania showed in 2010 that it can vote for a pure Corporatist -- but 2012 won't be like 2010.

Sure, a complete meltdown by the President could result in a Republican ousting him from the White House... but barring a diplomatic or military debacle, a personal scandal (including a sex scandal, for which this President obviously lacks the leeway that Bill Clinton had), or an economic meltdown for which the Republicans are held blameless, this President will be re-elected. It's going to take the "new Ronald Reagan" to defeat him, and there is no "new Ronald Reagan" who would have a chance of winning all the states that you mention.

If George W. Bush could be re-elected, then Barack Obama, who has blundered far less and less severely and is a far-more-effective campaigner, will be re-elected.   

Bush had a much better economy in 2004. 

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

He's blundered the economy with excessive regulations that ate crippling any signs of recovery and may plunge us into a double dip. He's havin a foreign policy disaster with Lybia.

[opebo]

He's blundered the economy with excessive regulations that ate crippling any signs of recovery and may plunge us into a double dip. He's havin a foreign policy disaster with Lybia.

No, you're wrong on the first one, and the second one is a hurricane in a teacup - doesn't matter, nobody cares.

Here's my map, showing the states each party will target from the other side's take last election:

All the Democrat targets are long shots, the GOP targets in light blue are long shots, but the ones in dark blue are quite likely.

[pbrower2a]

Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are all Likely Dem, no matter who the GOP nominates and only flip in the event of a total Dem electoral failure. Sure, some of these states are winnable for moderate Republicans, but no one like that exists in the GOP field.

All winnable by a conservative. Must i remind you that Reagan won all of thise states mut MN twice. We indeed have a Reagan conservative in the race. Ron Paul. Mitt is a moderate not a conservative and that's why he will not be the nominee.

Minnesota is one of the least "swingy" states. The state was the best state for Mondale and the second-best  for McGovern. Michigan has too large an African-American population to vote for a Republican nominee (see Maryland for a similar state in voting).  Scott Walker has made a mess in Wisconsin, where his dictatorial style has inspired recall elections for his legislative associates and, when the time arises (January 2012) for himself. Pennsylvania showed in 2010 that it can vote for a pure Corporatist -- but 2012 won't be like 2010.

Sure, a complete meltdown by the President could result in a Republican ousting him from the White House... but barring a diplomatic or military debacle, a personal scandal (including a sex scandal, for which this President obviously lacks the leeway that Bill Clinton had), or an economic meltdown for which the Republicans are held blameless, this President will be re-elected. It's going to take the "new Ronald Reagan" to defeat him, and there is no "new Ronald Reagan" who would have a chance of winning all the states that you mention.

If George W. Bush could be re-elected, then Barack Obama, who has blundered far less and less severely and is a far-more-effective campaigner, will be re-elected.   

Bush had a much better economy in 2004. 

True about the economy. There just is no housing boom, let alone a rash of consumer spending predicated upon borrowing against rising household equity. There just can be no boom unless there is a new stimulus that Congressional Republicans are not going to let happen until the Republicans get their way on about everything else.

The only way to get housing 'back' quickly, is with pure inflation that would likely hasten foreclosure activity, which will not itself be popular.