The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Archives => Politics => Election 2012 => Topic started by: Gina on May 07, 2012, 01:23:22 PM
-
I have read that Romney could win this election but it's very narrow. The article said that he would have to win about 9, I think, states that Obama won in 2008. If in early numbers coming back FL doesn't go to Romney than that could basically be the end of the election.
What says you? school me :)
-
Could be one of the reasons for wanting Rubio as VP.
I like Rubio, and I think he would be as asset to the GOP ticket, but he keeps saying that he won't accept if asked.
-
I remember coming to the conclusion in 2004, 2008, and 2012 that Florida would basically decide the election.
In my not-too-educated opinion, whoever wins Florida this year will win the White House.
So I really hope Romney wins FL.
-
I remember coming to the conclusion in 2004, 2008, and 2012 that Florida would basically decide the election.
In my not-too-educated opinion, whoever wins Florida this year will win the White House.
So I really hope Romney wins FL.
I am hoping that since Obama has pissed on the Jews so much that they will turn Florida over to Romney. :hyper:
-
Florida is no more or no less an important state than any of the others with a large electoral count. It just gets the press because of the 2000 election debacle.
-
Romney is a fool if he does not pick Rubio. Rubio would accept, and it will ensure a victory in FL and other border states. Picking him would be the Democrats worse nightmare. Plus, it would balance the ticket and they would make a good team. Older vs young...Yankee vs southerner...white vs hispanic...white shirt/stuffy vs energetic & charismatic.
-
Romney is a fool if he does not pick Rubio. Rubio would accept, and it will ensure a victory in FL and other border states. Picking him would be the Democrats worse nightmare. Plus, it would balance the ticket and they would make a good team. Older vs young...Yankee vs southerner...white vs hispanic...white shirt/stuffy vs energetic & charismatic.
Rubio has said he doesn't want it. I just hope he doesn't pick another middle aged white guy. Everyone I hear about on the "short list" is some middle aged governor. I'd really like to see him pick Allen West...leadership skills up the wazoo, military experience, brutally honest & fearless and pretty much the exact opposite of Romney. But the Republican elite will never choose someone like that (I think they still see Palin as a mistake even though she was the only thing that energized the election). And I still think McCain would have won (thanks mostly to her) if he hadn't gone all schizophrenic during the TARP meltdown.
Cindie
-
I heard he might even pick Paul Ryan. That would be interesting. I hope it is either Rubio or Christy.
-
Rubio has said he doesn't want it. I just hope he doesn't pick another middle aged white guy. Everyone I hear about on the "short list" is some middle aged governor. I'd really like to see him pick Allen West...leadership skills up the wazoo, military experience, brutally honest & fearless and pretty much the exact opposite of Romney. But the Republican elite will never choose someone like that (I think they still see Palin as a mistake even though she was the only thing that energized the election). And I still think McCain would have won (thanks mostly to her) if he hadn't gone all schizophrenic during the TARP meltdown.
Cindie
Has Rubio said that recently? I know he did a thumbs-down when his name was first broached last year, but today might be another animal altogether....
-
Christie needs to keep his ass in New Jersey. No way I would vote for him.
-
I don't think Romney is going to pick one of the flavor of the day politicians IE Rubio , West, Christy etc. I would like to see him pick someone along the lines of John Kasich. Former House member current Gov of Ohio.
-
Rubio has said he doesn't want it. I just hope he doesn't pick another middle aged white guy. Everyone I hear about on the "short list" is some middle aged governor. I'd really like to see him pick Allen West...leadership skills up the wazoo, military experience, brutally honest & fearless and pretty much the exact opposite of Romney. But the Republican elite will never choose someone like that (I think they still see Palin as a mistake even though she was the only thing that energized the election). And I still think McCain would have won (thanks mostly to her) if he hadn't gone all schizophrenic during the TARP meltdown.
Cindie
If Romney wants Rubio, I do not think he will have to twist his arm very much for him to accept the VP spot. I am with you on his pick of some white middle aged Gov. or politician that has been in politics for many, many years. Need to get some new blood in there that has new ideas. I like West but I am not sure what he would bring to the ticket in terms of convincing independents, women and hispanics to vote for a Repub. Most blacks are going to vote for the Magic Negro. On the other hand, Rubio could help win the state of FL and other border states.
-
Rubio has said he doesn't want it. I just hope he doesn't pick another middle aged white guy. Everyone I hear about on the "short list" is some middle aged governor. I'd really like to see him pick Allen West...leadership skills up the wazoo, military experience, brutally honest & fearless and pretty much the exact opposite of Romney. But the Republican elite will never choose someone like that (I think they still see Palin as a mistake even though she was the only thing that energized the election). And I still think McCain would have won (thanks mostly to her) if he hadn't gone all schizophrenic during the TARP meltdown.
Cindie
^5 for the part in bold. Palin could have won the election for him if McCain hadn't tried to out Maverick himself.
-
It's absolutely insane! the fact that a President that has resided over such a crap economy can even win the election? WTF? we should be talking a Reagan like sweep YET because the takers have outnumbered the givers? there's actually a chance this fool could win.
-
Has Rubio said that recently? I know he did a thumbs-down when his name was first broached last year, but today might be another animal altogether....
I saw Rubio interviewed one day last week (it was early in the week, so it could have been a clip from a weekend interview). He said again that he was going to stay right where he was and continue to represent the people of Florida.
As insistent has he has been about it, I'm afraid if he agrees to be the VP candidate, that the media and Dems will make him an ultimate flip-flopper. And they would have plenty of media clips -both video and print - to use.
Maybe Rubio doesn't want to be that closely associated with Romney, fearing if they don't get elected, the association would ruin his chances of running for president in the future, which I believe he will do.
-
Christie needs to keep his ass in New Jersey. No way I would vote for him.
I don't want him on the ticket either, but if it is him, I'm still voting ABO. A Christie/Biden debate would be fun to watch.
-
Florida is no more or no less an important state than any of the others with a large electoral count. It just gets the press because of the 2000 election debacle.
Disagree. It's a make-or break. Obama has a large number of electoral votes already sewn up: California, NY, Most of New England, etc. He has 161 electoral votes in the bag right now. Add Michigan, Minnesota, and Jersey to that list, and the votes start getting into scary territory.
Florida has the third highest electoral-vote count behind California (solid 0bama) and Texas (solid Romney) It'll probably come down to Florida, Ohio and Pa.
Real Clear Politics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html#safe_seats) has a scary breakdown.
-
Three-Way Race: Romney 44%, Obama 39%, Ron Paul 13%
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/may_2012/three_way_race_romney_44_obama_39_ron_paul_13
-
Three-Way Race: Romney 44%, Obama 39%, Ron Paul 13%
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/may_2012/three_way_race_romney_44_obama_39_ron_paul_13
I hate Ron Paul if he ****s this up
-
I hate Ron Paul if he ****s this up
I hate him anyway, but agreed.
-
Disagree. It's a make-or break. Obama has a large number of electoral votes already sewn up: California, NY, Most of New England, etc. He has 161 electoral votes in the bag right now. Add Michigan, Minnesota, and Jersey to that list, and the votes start getting into scary territory.
Florida has the third highest electoral-vote count behind California (solid 0bama) and Texas (solid Romney) It'll probably come down to Florida, Ohio and Pa.
Real Clear Politics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html#safe_seats) has a scary breakdown.
Correct. If Obama won FL, Romney would have to carry most if not all the rest of the red states that turned blue in the last election.
FL is a big question mark but if Romney picks Rubio he will carry the state. Democraps fear Rubio more than any other VP candidate.
-
It's absolutely insane! the fact that a President that has resided over such a crap economy can even win the election? WTF? we should be talking a Reagan like sweep YET because the takers have outnumbered the givers? there's actually a chance this fool could win.
Don't forget that in 1980, the polls had Reagan and Carter virtually neck-and-neck until their debate.
And yeah, I remember how screwed up the country and the economy was back then, and the prospect of a second Carter term was not only not out of the question in October 1980, but very much a possibility.
-
Don't forget that in 1980, the polls had Reagan and Carter virtually neck-and-neck until their debate.
And yeah, I remember how screwed up the country and the economy was back then, and the prospect of a second Carter term was not only not out of the question in October 1980, but very much a possibility.
This is precisely why I think Romney will win. The independents--a big bloc of votes for Obama the first time around--are going for Romney by 10+ points. I think that they (and the rest of the country) has seen what "Hope and Change" means. The closer we get to the election, if Romney's numbers go way up, that's a bad sign for the Obamessiah team.
-
Don't forget that in 1980, the polls had Reagan and Carter virtually neck-and-neck until their debate.
And yeah, I remember how screwed up the country and the economy was back then, and the prospect of a second Carter term was not only not out of the question in October 1980, but very much a possibility.
I've mentioned a couple of times how even with the country in shambles RR wasn't given much of a chance right up to the election. His Landslide victory was a total shocker.
-
This is precisely why I think Romney will win. The independents--a big bloc of votes for Obama the first time around--are going for Romney by 10+ points. I think that they (and the rest of the country) has seen what "Hope and Change" means. The closer we get to the election, if Romney's numbers go way up, that's a bad sign for the Obamessiah team.
I feel like the hall monitor telling everyone to slow down. I hate to be the "fun vacuum," and this will probably end up earning me a BS or two.
Several things scare me. First, on a lighter note, Dick Morris hasn't been right about an election ever. He's predicting a Romney rout.
More seriously, Obama--love the guy or hate him--is charismatic. He has a solid block of at least 30-35 percent of the country who will vote for him. Nationwide polls don't matter. Then wait til the negative campaigning really starts this summer. It's going to come down to a small handful of states, like Florida and PA. Pa. is one of the last union strongholds, especially in Philly and Pittsburgh where the population is.
Romney needs to flip PA and win Florida, and probably Ohio and another one or two of those tricky midwestern states. I'm not saying he can't do it, I'm just saying that it's going to be a nail-biter.
I really hope I'm looking at this wrong.
-
Three-Way Race: Romney 44%, Obama 39%, Ron Paul 13%
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/may_2012/three_way_race_romney_44_obama_39_ron_paul_13
No way will Ron Paul stay in the race, he has a son that's a Republican Senator, and you know darn well the GOP will strong-arm him into supporting Romney, you stay in the race? Rand gets nothing, you get out of the race? we'll give him a nice cushy committee assignment of his choice. I feel like Tony Soprano LOL.
-
This is precisely why I think Romney will win. The independents--a big bloc of votes for Obama the first time around--are going for Romney by 10+ points. I think that they (and the rest of the country) has seen what "Hope and Change" means. The closer we get to the election, if Romney's numbers go way up, that's a bad sign for the Obamessiah team.
Romney could get the majority of votes yet still lose because of the Electoral College.
-
Romney could get the majority of votes yet still lose because of the Electoral College.
There are a couple of states that have laws now, IIRC, that award the state's EC votes to the winner of the popular vote. I don't think the number is big--two, maybe--but that could be enough to tilt things. They are blue states, IIRC, who decided to do this after the 2000 election, who went red in that election.
-
There are a couple of states that have laws now, IIRC, that award the state's EC votes to the winner of the popular vote. I don't think the number is big--two, maybe--but that could be enough to tilt things. They are blue states, IIRC, who decided to do this after the 2000 election, who went red in that election.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but to do that there has to be an amendment to the Constitution, I think there are 6 States signed on to this right now, but you need 2/3rds of the States to sign on to ratify something like this, which goes against the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted IMO. So while these States are signed on to this they legally can't because it's unconstitutional as of right now.
-
I remember in 2008 when they (the liberals) were pushing to change it to the popular vote. They thought it would increase the chances of another Obama win if they did.
-
Don't forget that in 1980, the polls had Reagan and Carter virtually neck-and-neck until their debate.
And yeah, I remember how screwed up the country and the economy was back then, and the prospect of a second Carter term was not only not out of the question in October 1980, but very much a possibility.
That is what the pollsters and the liberal hacks in the media wanted you to believe. I don't have any faith in these stupid polls or predictions. Plus, a great percentage of voters are not political junkies like we are. They just do not make up their minds about elections until the last week or two before an election. BTW, I listened to those debates and anyone with a brain could see that Reagan was going to whip up on the peanut farmer. So, from my own personal experience, the pundits, pollsters and the liberal media was just as full of shit then as they are today. Romney will win big unless a major event takes place like a full scale war with Iran. That would just make it a little harder for Romney to win.
If Romney stays on the offense about the economy, jobs, taxes. health care and debt, he will blow Obummer out of the water and win big. If he does that and picks Rubio for VP, the game is over for the Magic Negro.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but to do that there has to be an amendment to the Constitution, I think there are 6 States signed on to this right now, but you need 2/3rds of the States to sign on to ratify something like this, which goes against the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted IMO. So while these States are signed on to this they legally can't because it's unconstitutional as of right now.
I'm not sure what's meant here. Except for Nebraska and Maine, all the states award all their electors to the winner of the popular vote within each state.
I'm more worried about Ohio than Florida. I think we get FL back. But we still lose without Ohio.
-
I'm more worried about Ohio than Florida. I think we get FL back. But we still lose without Ohio.
And that's why Rob Portman is on the short list for VP . . .
-
I'm not sure what's meant here. Except for Nebraska and Maine, all the states award all their electors to the winner of the popular vote within each state.
I'm more worried about Ohio than Florida. I think we get FL back. But we still lose without Ohio.
There are States (Blue States) who want to switch to the popular vote, so they want to award their Electoral Votes to the person who got the most votes overall in the whole Country, this crap goes back to Al Gore winning the popular vote but losing the election.
-
I remember in 2008 when they (the liberals) were pushing to change it to the popular vote. They thought it would increase the chances of another Obama win if they did.
That would require a Constitutional Amendment.
I don't see that happening anytime soon.
-
I think if Romney doesn't win....this country is truley ****ed!!! :bawl:
-
I'm not sure what's meant here. Except for Nebraska and Maine, all the states award all their electors to the winner of the popular vote within each state.
I'm more worried about Ohio than Florida. I think we get FL back. But we still lose without Ohio.
Incorrect according to my research.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/laws.html
-
I'm more worried about Ohio than Florida. I think we get FL back. But we still lose without Ohio.
The reason Romney will beat Obama in Ohio is because the state has a very popular Repub. Governor who has turned the state around from the miserable job done by the previous Democratic administration. Never underestimate the clout that a Governor has in his home state especially when he has done a good job. The Magic Negro's hopey and changey has gone in the shittier. Independents were sold a bill of goods and it has turned out to be sour grapes. This election will be about the economy and jobs. That makes me believe that Obama does not stand a prayer of winning Ohio or Florida.
-
Speaking of Ohio, let us not forget that Dennis Kookcinich, the long-term whack job whose district includes the western suburbs of Cleveland, was defeated in his primary.
While my former commander, who is a moonbat liberal living in Toledo, routinely badmouths Kasich and thus is not one of those who thinks Kasich is doing a good job, there could very well be a turn toward the center from areas of Ohio that were solidly blue, even whack-job blue.
-
I hate Ron Paul if he ****s this up
I don't think he will. Most of his support comes from younger and more liberal voters. One thing the toe-sucker Morris IS right about is the fact that in most cases, when you have a "strong" third-party candidate, they break away more from the incumbent or party of the incumbent. Take for example Wallace in 1968, Anderson in 1980, Perot in 1992, and Nader in 2000 as some of the more recent examples. All of them HURT the candidate of the party in power at the time.
That being said, Paul would be a fool of the first order to even entertain thoughts of a third-party run. To do so would torpedo his son's political career.
-
There are a couple of states that have laws now, IIRC, that award the state's EC votes to the winner of the popular vote. I don't think the number is big--two, maybe--but that could be enough to tilt things. They are blue states, IIRC, who decided to do this after the 2000 election, who went red in that election.
Maine and Nebraska are the only states that have the vote setup you mention, but what typically happens is a breakdown between each district where the winner of that district gets the EV for that district, and the winner of the state overall gets the two EV's representing the "Senate votes" for that state.
-
Interesting thought, Sparky, but I don't think I could EVER include Ralph Nader in as a "strong" presidential candy-date. Perhaps he had a better showing in 2000 than he did in 2004 and again in 2008, but he's always been the moonbat's moonbat, still riding on the coattails of his long association with D.C. and the slamming he did of the Corvair in his book, "Unsafe at Any Speed."
-
Speaking of Ohio, let us not forget that Dennis Kookcinich, the long-term whack job whose district includes the western suburbs of Cleveland, was defeated in his primary.
While my former commander, who is a moonbat liberal living in Toledo, routinely badmouths Kasich and thus is not one of those who thinks Kasich is doing a good job, there could very well be a turn toward the center from areas of Ohio that were solidly blue, even whack-job blue.
He lost to another Dem who was almost as much a whackjob in Marcy Kaptur. Now she has to face Joe the Plumber. While I don't give him a whole lot of chances, it's going to be a whole lot closer in that district that one might think.
Ditto in MA-4 where Sean Bilat is running against Joe Kennedy III. Time was the mere mention of the name "Kennedy" was enough to ensure a win by 40 points.
And bless her black little heart, here in NH-1 Carol Che-Porter is trying ever so hard to get column inches in the attempt to win the Dem primary and face Frank Guinta again in November, but she apparently forgot that 1--she hitched her wagon to Obama's star back when, 2--she lost by 15 points, 3--people around here see her as no more than Pelosi's rubber stamp. IOW, she believes her own hype.
-
Interesting thought, Sparky, but I don't think I could EVER include Ralph Nader in as a "strong" presidential candy-date. Perhaps he had a better showing in 2000 than he did in 2004 and again in 2008, but he's always been the moonbat's moonbat, still riding on the coattails of his long association with D.C. and the slamming he did of the Corvair in his book, "Unsafe at Any Speed."
3 percent may not seem like a lot, but in 2000, it was more than enough.
-
3 percent may not seem like a lot, but in 2000, it was more than enough.
Granted, but the 2000 election was extraordinary in so many other ways as to make Nader's participation more of a side show than political reality. Perot in 1992, on the other hand, was much more of a factor percentagewise.
-
He lost to another Dem who was almost as much a whackjob in Marcy Kaptur. Now she has to face Joe the Plumber. While I don't give him a whole lot of chances, it's going to be a whole lot closer in that district that one might think.
Ditto in MA-4 where Sean Bilat is running against Joe Kennedy III. Time was the mere mention of the name "Kennedy" was enough to ensure a win by 40 points.
And bless her black little heart, here in NH-1 Carol Che-Porter is trying ever so hard to get column inches in the attempt to win the Dem primary and face Frank Guinta again in November, but she apparently forgot that 1--she hitched her wagon to Obama's star back when, 2--she lost by 15 points, 3--people around here see her as no more than Pelosi's rubber stamp. IOW, she believes her own hype.
Even if Joe the Plumber loses to Kaptur, the district becomes just a tad less "Kookified" with him gone and thus, maybe a shade less blue.
-
Granted, but the 2000 election was extraordinary in so many other ways as to make Nader's participation more of a side show than political reality. Perot in 1992, on the other hand, was much more of a factor percentagewise.
Also consider that in 1980, pundits figured that Anderson would take away a lot more from Reagan than Carter because Anderson was previously a Republican. It showed later that they broke off almost evenly. Perot took away from GOP voters almost 3-1 over Clinton voters. The reason I don't consider Perot a factor in 1996 is because even with ALL Perot voters going to Dole, it is at best unlikely he would have won the election anyway, Dole was such a weak candidate.
-
Also consider that in 1980, pundits figured that Anderson would take away a lot more from Reagan than Carter because Anderson was previously a Republican. It showed later that they broke off almost evenly. Perot took away from GOP voters almost 3-1 over Clinton voters. The reason I don't consider Perot a factor in 1996 is because even with ALL Perot voters going to Dole, it is at best unlikely he would have won the election anyway, Dole was such a weak candidate.
I had the sense in 1996 that Perot was also a weak candidate. He didn't have the same fire he'd had in 1992.
-
Even if Joe the Plumber loses to Kaptur, the district becomes just a tad less "Kookified" with him gone and thus, maybe a shade less blue.
Yup--and look at the MA Senate race. I read one poll that has Brown and Fauxcahontas tied at 45-45. A few years ago, Brown 1--wouldn't be in the Senate, 2--any GOP challenger to Coakley (presuming she had won when Fat Ted gave up the ghost) would be down by at least 20 points.
Too bad most (not all, but most) of the MA GOP challengers suck ass. Christy Mihos? AYFKM?
-
I had the sense in 1996 that Perot was also a weak candidate. He didn't have the same fire he'd had in 1992.
Most third-party candidates are usually one-shot deals.
-
Most third-party candidates are usually one-shot deals.
Yup, 'cept Nader. He keeps coming back for more rejection.
-
Yup, 'cept Nader. He keeps coming back for more rejection.
True, but I meant in the sense that they draw a significant portion of the vote (> 5%) and/or have any significant influence on the overall election.
Take pretty much anyone who has ever run from the Green or Libertarian Party.
-
Incorrect according to my research.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/laws.html
No, I am not incorrect. I wasn't citing statute, but how it is done in fact. I know the electors aren't actually bound, but, in practice, that's how it goes. Have you heard, in your entire life, of any electors in the 48 winner-take-all states casting their votes for anyone but the winner of that state's popular vote? Even one? That's because it doesn't happen.
In 2000 there was a lot of loose talk of the Dems lobbying and trying to flip electors, but even then, it didn't happen. At all. All electors won in the 48 winner-take-all states went to GW Bush.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#takeall
"What is the difference between the winner-takes-all rule and proportional voting, and which States follow which rule?
There are 48 States that have a winner-takes-all rule for the Electoral College. In these States, whichever candidate receives a majority of the vote, or a plurality of the popular vote (less than 50 percent but more than any other candidate) takes all of the State's electoral votes.
Only two States, Nebraska and Maine, do not follow the winner-takes-all rule. In those States, there could be a split of electoral votes among candidates through the State's system for proportional allocation of votes.For example, Maine has four electoral votes and two Congressional districts. It awards one electoral vote per Congressional district and two by the state-wide, "at-large" vote. It is possible for Candidate A to win the first district and receive one electoral vote, Candidate B to win the second district and receive one electoral vote, and Candidate C, who finished a close second in both the first and second districts, to win the two at-large electoral votes. Although this is a possible scenario, it has not actually occurred in recent elections."
Nebraska and Maine are the two odd states out--not sure if that's what you were disagreeing with or my first assertion, but in either case, I am entirely correct.
http://archive.fairvote.org/e_college/me_ne.htm