A question to Romney supporters

[Torie]

With the GOP's lose of New Mexico and NM's related demographics, Mitt Romney's path to 270 involves winning states that haven't voted for a Republican since 1988.

So, what kind've person would vote for Mitt Romney after not voting for H.W. 92, Dole, Bush 00, Bush 04 or John McCain? Why is Mitt Romney a better candidate than those guys?

Because of his opposition, both on electability and fitness grounds. Period. And the only state Romney needs to win that has not gone Pub since 1988 is NH. And Obama 2012 is not Obama 2008, nor Clinton. The end.

[Keystone Phil]

Yeah, I have a question for Romney supporters: Why?

1.  He can defeat Obama.

Going to have to have Obama really tank for that to happen...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, true. It's tough to be extreme when you don't believe in a thing.

[Politico]

With the GOP's lose of New Mexico and NM's related demographics, Mitt Romney's path to 270 involves winning states that haven't voted for a Republican since 1988.

So, what kind've person would vote for Mitt Romney after not voting for H.W. 92, Dole, Bush 00, Bush 04 or John McCain? Why is Mitt Romney a better candidate than those guys?

Bush didn't need NM to win in 2000 and 2004, so why does Romney?

[Politico]

The fact that states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Iowa are experiencing the brunt of our recent economic downturn, I think that Romney will play well to white, working class (traditionally unionized) voters who are not fans of Obama's economic policies.  However, Romney can do this while using his moderate record to social issues to appeal to young professionals and suburbanites.

If Romney plays his cards right, he will win the election in a walk--with big wins in the South, a massive swing towards Republicans in the Industrial Midwest and to a lesser extent the Northeast while his Mormon religion helps him out west in states like Colorado and Nevada.  

For someone with such a (relatively) high approval rating, President Obama is one of the weakest incumbents in over 30 years.  His record on the economy and energy are in conflict, to say the very least, and he has failed to seize the opportunity to redefine American foreign policy goals in a post-Iraq world.  

Between Romney's moderate record, his chameleon abilities, his deep warchest and the undoubted support he will receive from Wall Street and other Super PACs 2012 is Romney's to lose.

This.

It's simply unfathomable that a president can win re-election with unemployment in excess of 8% and gas above $4/gallon at any point during his re-election year. This is not f'ing Europe, for Pete's sake. America does not reward mediocrity.

[Politico]

I'm not saying he is favored to win CO or NV, just pointing out that both voted for Bush both times. But if Romney picked up either IA or NH (both of which voted for Bush Jr. once), plus all the other Bush Jr. states, minus CO AND NV, he still wins.

I am just pointing out that he has various paths through states that have voted for the GOP in the last five elections. The key to all of it is OH and FL. There is no path without winning both

The key is FL. There is probably no way to win without it. I think there's a possibility of winning without OH, though. It would have to be 2000-close, though, and would include picking off IA and NV along with either WI or CO.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

The fact that states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Iowa are experiencing the brunt of our recent economic downturn, I think that Romney will play well to white, working class (traditionally unionized) voters who are not fans of Obama's economic policies.  However, Romney can do this while using his moderate record to social issues to appeal to young professionals and suburbanites.

If Romney plays his cards right, he will win the election in a walk--with big wins in the South, a massive swing towards Republicans in the Industrial Midwest and to a lesser extent the Northeast while his Mormon religion helps him out west in states like Colorado and Nevada.  

For someone with such a (relatively) high approval rating, President Obama is one of the weakest incumbents in over 30 years.  His record on the economy and energy are in conflict, to say the very least, and he has failed to seize the opportunity to redefine American foreign policy goals in a post-Iraq world.  

Between Romney's moderate record, his chameleon abilities, his deep warchest and the undoubted support he will receive from Wall Street and other Super PACs 2012 is Romney's to lose.

This.

It's simply unfathomable that a president can win re-election with unemployment in excess of 8% and gas above $4/gallon at any point during his re-election year.

And consumers aren't worried about gas prices. They're worried about them leading to inflation, which is staying in check.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thanks for pointing out the obvious. We aren't Europe. Did you know that gravity causes things to fall to the ground?

[Politico]

In American politics, "chameleon abilities" are a weakness, not a strength. Just ask John Kerry.

Funny, because I remember John Kerry somehow almost beating a president with unemployment below 5%, gasoline below $2/gallon, the country in the middle of a war that rallied many to the cause of the Commander-in-Chief, and a nation that was strongly against a social position that Kerry's home state adopted (i.e., gay marriage).

I also remember a guy named Bill Clinton who won re-election by engaging in the most impressive performance of triangulation in the history of politics.

[Politico]

The fact that states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Iowa are experiencing the brunt of our recent economic downturn, I think that Romney will play well to white, working class (traditionally unionized) voters who are not fans of Obama's economic policies.  However, Romney can do this while using his moderate record to social issues to appeal to young professionals and suburbanites.

If Romney plays his cards right, he will win the election in a walk--with big wins in the South, a massive swing towards Republicans in the Industrial Midwest and to a lesser extent the Northeast while his Mormon religion helps him out west in states like Colorado and Nevada.  

For someone with such a (relatively) high approval rating, President Obama is one of the weakest incumbents in over 30 years.  His record on the economy and energy are in conflict, to say the very least, and he has failed to seize the opportunity to redefine American foreign policy goals in a post-Iraq world.  

Between Romney's moderate record, his chameleon abilities, his deep warchest and the undoubted support he will receive from Wall Street and other Super PACs 2012 is Romney's to lose.

This.

It's simply unfathomable that a president can win re-election with unemployment in excess of 8% and gas above $4/gallon at any point during his re-election year.

How many people voted for FDR 80 years ago and are still alive/voting (Chicago does not count)?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you want a latte with that? Are you serious? Of course people are pissed about gas prices. They do not like seeing more and more of their disposable income go towards gas. Food prices are starting to creep up as a result of rising transportation costs. You obviously do not buy your own groceries if you have not noticed this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thanks for pointing out the obvious. We aren't Europe. Did you know that gravity causes things to fall to the ground?
[/quote]

The way some of you think European conditions are conducive to an American president winning re-election, I am beginning to wonder if you think America is the New Europe.

[Politico]

If Romney carries all the states that went for Bush in 2000 AND 2004 (so that doesn't include NM, IA or NH) he ends up with 281, which means he can drop NV or CO and still win

How's he polling with hispanics compared to Bush? Colorado and Nevada aren't all that viable for Mitt.

The problem with the thread is that it only mentions one state.

The short answer is that in order to get from here to 51%, Romney has to (among other things for sure) pull a rabbit out of his hat with Hispanics.

If we need to stick Rubio on the ticket, so be it.

[Politico]

With the GOP's lose of New Mexico and NM's related demographics, Mitt Romney's path to 270 involves winning states that haven't voted for a Republican since 1988.

So, what kind've person would vote for Mitt Romney after not voting for H.W. 92, Dole, Bush 00, Bush 04 or John McCain? Why is Mitt Romney a better candidate than those guys?

Because of his opposition, both on electability and fitness grounds. Period. And the only state Romney needs to win that has not gone Pub since 1988 is NH. And Obama 2012 is not Obama 2008, nor Clinton. The end.

I agree with this, but Bush won NH in 2000.