broganjoe wrote:
You keep ignoring the fact that Gingrich's negatives are the problem, not his conservatism.
No, I don't. It doesn't come up much in here. It's all Gingrich-as-Satan from the Taliban wing of the Republcan Party - who know less about general elections than you think I do. Also, this forum is loaded with people who say G is not conservative, the proprietor and two moderators, for example
This is like a two-roll proposition. Beating Obama is actually the easier part. Beating him with someone who will actually downsize the govt is where the positive equity really is. This is how the liberals won the 20th century leg of he American Revolution. They followed the Alinsky Rule (load the party with radicals in the primary and don't worry about the next election), not the Buckley rule of milquetoast (electability over ideology). That's why, when the libs have the majority, they do permanent damage that the country never recovers from. Look the Bush years, control of both Houses and no progress. As a minority the Dems blocked crucial conservative Bush judicial appointments. That's how govt went from 2 percent of GDP to 26 percent of GDP in my lifetime - winning the preliminary skirmish but losing every major battle. Milquetoast lost to dedicated radicals. The most committed wins.
Bottom line, yes Romney is probably 2 or 3 percent more likely to win than was any of the conservative 5. So, if Romney is 65-35 to beat Obama today. Santorum is 62-38 to beat him.
Quote:
Obama needs to carry just one more state than John Kerry to win his reelection.
Or 500 more votes in FL than Gore got, or about 10,000 more than Kerry got in Ohio. So close it could be ACORNed. I look Rubio/Crist/Meek 48/31/21 and say, go ahead substite a conservative Republican for Rubio, substitute Obama for Meek and tell me how Obama carries Florida. He'd have to get the whole 31 percent that went for Crist.
Quote:
He'll need to garner the votes of Independents and Conservative Democrats if he expects to beat Obama.
You seen the polls in battleground states?
Throughout 2009, I still had Obama a slight favorite, through 2010 I downgraded him to a slight underdog, and now he is substantial underdog. And he's pushing harder on the things that got him unpopular.
Oh, you're right, that was a clever spoof in my last post.
This is about a month old. It doesn't seem to have sunken in with any Republicans or MSM, if there is a difference any more. They just keep spouting same "electability" crap.
thehttp://whitehouse12.com/2011/12/13/obama-losing-battleground-states-to-gingrich-and-romney-gives-g-o-p-big-electoral-college-advantage/Quote:
And according to the numbers, excluding the 12 battlegrounds, President Obama starts out with a base electoral vote of 196 votes. On that I agree. That same 196 number was reached in a map I prepared for White House 2012 several months ago. On the flip side, Republicans find themselves with a base 0f 191 electoral votes.
However; the USA Today/Gallup survey finds that based upon current polling of registered voters, President Obama is trailing behind both Republican frontrunners, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. According to them, “Obama trails former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney among registered voters by 5 points, 43% vs. 48%, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich by 3, 45% vs. 48%.”
This is of course good news for the G.O.P. But in my own analysis which I prepared several months ago, the news was even better and still holds true today.
While the 12 battleground states are chosen based on voting histories, the results of the 2010 midterms and demographics, my own assessment of recent electoral data in these states, combines additional factors such as the issues, governors, and intensity level of other statewide elections and ballot initiatives that will be influencing the 2012 election [see my map below this post] . I have concluded that the real number of battleground states in the 2012 election is actually six, not twelve. Even though it is true that the results of all twelve swing states are not certain, my assessment finds that , Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Virginia are far more likely to go Republican than many are willing to admit. So while aggressive campaigns will be waged in those states, at least for the first few months of the general election campaign, the hardest fought campaigns will be waged in Colorado, Michigan, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin
Based on my numbers, while President Obama maintains his locked in electoral vote of 196, Republicans start out with a base electoral vote of 264, just six electoral votes shy of the 270 needed to be elected President. That leaves Democrats and President Obama, with their backs against the wall
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
