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

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I'm confident Indiana is going GOP but what other states do you think the GOP will target

[5280]

They will target all the states Bush won in 2004 Obama won in 2008. NC, CO, FL, NV, IN, VA etc.

[pbrower2a]

I'm confident Indiana is going GOP but what other states do you think the GOP will target

Everything but the District of Columbia.

Remember -- the Tea Party is nothing more than a front for the GOP, about like "Friends of the Soviet Union" was a front for the Communist party of the USA.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I'd also throw NH and Maine as well. Possibly MN too.

[Lief 🗽]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

lol

[Tender Branson]

Most likely:

Some of these states are only competetive with Romney (like NV & CO), if they nominate Bachmann you can forget these states ...

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

lol

I call it an alliance because they are not the same thing.

[Mehmentum]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

lol

I call it an alliance because they are not the same thing.

So should we call Democrats now the Democrat/Union/Proggressive alliance?

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

No. You can't tell them apart and haven't been able to in over a generation or 2.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

lol

I call it an alliance because they are not the same thing.

You're right. Take out "Tea Party Alliance". It's going to be a GOP candidate that either is or isn't part of the Tea Party, not a combination of the GOP and the Tea Party.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

lol

I call it an alliance because they are not the same thing.

You're right. Take out "Tea Party Alliance". It's going to be a GOP candidate that either is or isn't part of the Tea Party, not a combination of the GOP and the Tea Party.

Depends on the ticket.

[TheGlobalizer]

Most likely:

Some of these states are only competetive with Romney (like NV & CO), if they nominate Bachmann you can forget these states ...

This, plus New Mexico, and probably minus Minnesota (I wouldn't bother).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

No. You can't tell them apart and haven't been able to in over a generation or 2.

And you can tell the Republicans and the Tea Party apart? Please teach me how, that seems like a neat superpower.

[Heimdal]

If the political climate becomes really bad for the Democrats the GOP should target New Jersey, Maine, New Hampshire etc. New Hampshire isn't that much of a blue state, and I think George W. Bush came close to winning New Jersey in 2012. I think Romney would be a good fit for the independents in these states.

In a more neutral environment they should rather focus their time and energy on the more regular swing states, like Nevada, Colorado and Ohio.

I think Indiana and North Colorado will flipp back anyway, as long as Cain, Gingrich, Palin or Bachman isn't on the ticket.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I could understand maybe North Carolina. Indiana is going GOP regardless of the candidate. Indiana would go 65% or better  GOP if Gov. Daniels is VP with a Tea Party (Paul, Bachamann, Cain). I believe the danger is if Romney is the nominee and he picks another moderate. (Huntsman, TPaw) or neocons (Santorum). If Chris Christie is the VP NJ is a tossup.

[redcommander]

All the 2008 swing states along with Maine, New Jersey, and possibly Oregon if the 2012 political environment becomes very bad.

[izixs]

I think it comes down to a mix of resource availability and the kind of win they think they can get or hope to get.

Assuming on part resources with the Obama campaign, they'd at least attempt to match the president's efforts in the close states from last time (As far down the list of closeness as GA up through PA/WI/NH most likely). After that, in the equal resource game, its a trade off. Do you give Obama a better chance at a remote but achievable Georgia by moving your resources to New Jersey? You might if your the governor of NJ but he's pretty much out of contention for the Republican nomination even if he did change his mind at the last minute. And even then shooting for NJ would only be useful if you were planning or trying to win with a large EV margin. (be it with a large popular vote or not)

Oregon is much more likely then NJ for such a move as its cheeper (thus the resource fraction gained by letting Obama try for Georgia isn't totally used up) and thus you can spend more on the other swing states or pick another cheep target (Maine perhaps?).

Another option is to use more resources in a national push. If Obama has the swing states locked up to hold a majority of electoral votes, the Republican candidate might attempt to do a reverse Gore. Win the popular vote by racking up huge margins in TX, OK, AL, ect and loose the election. This would fit in strongly with the Tea Party view that Obama isn't a legit president, even more so if Obama holds one or more states by slim margins. People will in retrospect find the liberals who are forever convinced that GWB stole the 2000 election as calm and excessively reasonable people in comparison. Tea Party folks love playing the victim and they'd milk that all the way until the next election with a narrative about how they're defending 'freedom' from those who 'stole' the election twice.

Of course if they did win in 2016 then, they wouldn't lift a finger to change the electoral college.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Another option is to use more resources in a national push. If Obama has the swing states locked up to hold a majority of electoral votes, the Republican candidate might attempt to do a reverse Gore. Win the popular vote by racking up huge margins in TX, OK, AL, ect and loose the election. This would fit in strongly with the Tea Party view that Obama isn't a legit president, even more so if Obama holds one or more states by slim margins. People will in retrospect find the liberals who are forever convinced that GWB stole the 2000 election as calm and excessively reasonable people in comparison. Tea Party folks love playing the victim and they'd milk that all the way until the next election with a narrative about how they're defending 'freedom' from those who 'stole' the election twice.

Of course if they did win in 2016 then, they wouldn't lift a finger to change the electoral college.

Republicans still seem to believe that the electoral college favors them, which it did in 2000, but doesn't inherently. Kerry lost the popular vote by a considerable margin, but would have won the election had a few ten thousand votes in Ohio gone the other way. Obama's tipping point state was Iowa, which he won by a larger margin than his national margin, indicating that the electoral college favored him, even though he ran up huge margins in CA, NY, and IL.

[Tender Branson]

Most likely:

Some of these states are only competetive with Romney (like NV & CO), if they nominate Bachmann you can forget these states ...

This, plus New Mexico, and probably minus Minnesota (I wouldn't bother).

NM ain't competetive anymore on the Presidential level.

[TheGlobalizer]

Most likely:

Some of these states are only competetive with Romney (like NV & CO), if they nominate Bachmann you can forget these states ...

This, plus New Mexico, and probably minus Minnesota (I wouldn't bother).

NM ain't competetive anymore on the Presidential level.

Disagree, depends on the candidate.  Red meat Republican opposed to immigration?  Yes, no chance.  Moderate Republican with guest worker and path to citizenship?  Different theory altogether.

No doubt that NM leans D, but the state isn't a Democratic sure thing at all.  I'd call it centrist that leans left on immigration and libertarian on social issues.  Bush/Gore and Bush/Kerry were nominal wins (Gore and Bush respectively), though Obama buried McCain in 2008.

[DrScholl]

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.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

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.

[UpcomingYouthvoter]

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.

Ron Paul is not Reagan conservative at all. Ron Paul oppose the war on drugs. Reagan did not. Ron Paul wants the government to be like the Articles of Confederacy. Reagan talk like a libertarian but he did not "walk the talk" in any ways about his spending. And moderates have done better for the GOP then conservatives in historical retrospect. Look at pre Reagan 1980 era and look at the majority of the nominations that the GOP choose for president.

[Mopsus]

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.

So? Lyndon Johnson won every state but Arizona and the Deep South states. That doesn't mean that Barrack Obama, who could be considered similar to LBJ in politics, will, or even could win all of the states Johnson won. Politics change.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ignoring the fact that Mitt Romney is not moderate, I want you to read this article and tell me if you still think Ron Paul is a "Reagan conservative": http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0301.green.html

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

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)