Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I don't see Gingrich winning the key states. He'll get absolutely destroyed in suburban Philly, DC and South Florida..maybe even worse than McCain in 2008

Yes we know that no Republican could possibly win the election and yet lose the District of Columbia.

More seriously, I presume you meant NoVA rather than DC itself.  Yes, Virginia and Pennsylvania look to be swing states, but Florida shouldn't be.  If Florida is seriously in play, it looks to be an excellent night for Obama unless Florida swings considerably less Republican than the country as whole.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I don't see Gingrich winning the key states. He'll get absolutely destroyed in suburban Philly, DC and South Florida..maybe even worse than McCain in 2008

Yes we know that no Republican could possibly win the election and yet lose the District of Columbia.

More seriously, I presume you meant NoVA rather than DC itself.  Yes, Virginia and Pennsylvania look to be swing states, but Florida shouldn't be.  If Florida is seriously in play, it looks to be an excellent night for Obama unless Florida swings considerably less Republican than the country as whole.

Or he was talking about the suburbs of D.C. in Virginia, a state that is nearly a must win for the .

Which I acknowledged in my reply.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

While space mirrors lighting our highways is a bit impractical, largely because there are good reasons to have darkness most places at night, the idea of orbital solar energy satellites is a fairly standard trope of science fiction, and working to develop such things would certainly be a better use of the NASA budget than the useless boondoggle known as the International Space Station.  From an economic point of view, the main hurdle to such a system is the cost to lift the satellites into orbit.  If we ever do reach the point where it becomes desirable to engage in mega-engineering in space, it would be less costly to build a lunar base that would then build and launch the satellites from Luna than to build them directly from Terra.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Number 1 is the most absurd, but only because if we were to build space mirrors to collect solar energy for use, highway lighting directly from the mirrors is one of the more inefficient ways to make use of them, plus it would lead to widespread light pollution.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

(PROTIP: if you're reading back through this thread

I think we can safely say that this is unlikely to be a major problem.

Considering Bob went back through the threads after they were merged to make replies to 8 different posts, it would seem that Bob does not put safety first.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

We all were saying a week or two ago when Newt shot up that it wasn't over, that Romney was still going to win, and by the way things are starting to look, I think we're going to be right.

If so, then Obama likely gets a second term.

I will grant that Romney as the nominee should secure the GOP taking control of the Senate and retaining the House, but unless something unexpected happens, I don't see where Mitt can overtake Obama.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Have you seen an optometrist lately? 

Have you taken a good look at the polls?  Based on current polling, Obama has a solid win in the electoral college versus Romney.  Mitt is not a good enough campaigner to change those numbers on his own, and frankly the Republican "optimism" that if the economy goes in the toilet so does Obama's chances of reelection strikes me as wildly optimistic.  In order for the economy to feel significantly worse than it does now will require a European collapse or some other comparable external shock. If you think a multi-millionaire ex-CEO of a private equity firm with a reputation of getting its acquisitions to be profitable by laying-off employees is the ideal candidate for the Republicans to field in such a situation, then I think you are quite mistaken.

If Romney does become the nominee, I expect the general election against Obama to much more resemble his 1994 loss to Kennedy than his 2002 plurality victory over O'Brien.  O'Brien was hobbled by having to exhaust her early fundraising to win the primary, so she was unable to respond to Romney's attack ads as effectively as she wanted.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If Obama has to use serious resources on Pennsylvania and Michigan in October, a distinct possibility against Romney, Obama is Jimmy Carter 1980 at worst and Al Gore 2000 at best. It will be a one term proposition for the president.

The only evidence so far  that Obama is in serious trouble in Michigan are a pair of very questionable EPIC/MRA polls.  Obama might have a problem there if the economy goes into another mild stall, but I don't see that happening.