Mitt Romney has self destructed with his comment condemning the “47 percent”, and making clear he has no interest in them, because they will not vote for him, even though, in reality, many of the “47 percent” might have voted for him, but now will reconsider.
But think back 48 years ago to 1964, when right wing conservative Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona suggested that the nation would be better off if the Atlantic Coast of North America–the entire East Coast— was to be cut off and sent out to sea!
President Lyndon Johnson put out commercials showing a map of the US, with New England, the Middle Atlantic, and the states down to Florida all cut off!
It was hilarious, and Goldwater went on to win a total of six states, a total disaster, a well deserved defeat!
Mitt Romney is about to be repudiated by the American people as well, although the “heartland” will mostly back him out of resentment of having an African American President, and refusing to deal with it!
I would love a 44-state landslide re-election for No. 44!
The six states that would be the best bets for Republican holds for Mitt Romney: Alabama, Idaho, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming.
In the last 100 years, we’ve had eleven [11] presidential elections in the which the winner carried four of every five states: 1912, 1928, 1932, 1936, 1952, 1956, 1964, 1972, 1980, 1984, and 1988.
Campaigns these days aren’t run with either party trying to knock themselves out for glorious landslides in popular-vote margins and electoral-vote scores. So, we’ll probably be subjected to the usual “battleground states” nonsense for a few more presidential election cycles. Even in years where there should be one. (And I’d very much include 2008.)
Showing up in states your party doesn’t win can only help. Not bothering, particularly when your party is going to win, gives the electorate of a deserving state no compelling reason to consider breaking their voting habits. (You didn’t show up and ask for the votes of the citizenry.)
Mitt Romney’s “47 speech” has laid a bomb. It has chased away his party establishment. It has move polling numbers in key states—and ones that really aren’t as competitive as some suggest—on par (or even better) with President Obama’s 2008 performances. Senate races are moving in direction of the Democrats to ensure Republicans cannot, and will not, get the majority-control pickup. (Reality check: Since the 17th Amendment, Senate/House party flippings in presidential years have always gone to the side of the winning candidate: 1932, 1948, 1952, and 1980.) And, as predictable, behind-the-scenes power figures will continue to move their campaign money to the down-ballot races.
President Obama should not surrender a single state he won in Election 2008. He should go into more states which were close in 2008: Arizona, Georgia, Missouri, and Montana. And he should pursue ones which haven’t voted Democratic since Lyndon Johnson’s 1964 landslide—yes, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota—and ask for their vote.
Indiana, which Obama won first time for a Democrat since LBJ with Election 2008, voted the same as the four plains states from 1920 to 2004. In 2008, Obama also won over the 2nd Congressional District in Nebraska, which is the Omaha area, as McCain held the 1st (Lincoln) by 9.75%, the statewide in Neb. and won Kan. by 15 points, S.D. by 8.41%, and N.D. by 8.65%.
By the way: None of this is doable unless President Obama wins nationally by about 20%. But what Romney’s “47 speech”—a big *F* you to have-nots of American society—should be a help. It’s that powerful and worthy!
This is a fantastic analysis, and I am extremely impressed with it! 🙂
I do not see it happening, but it would be wonderful if it did happen, and there certainly is an argument to visit states that are not considered “swing” states, as that can have an effect psychologically on voters in those states, and affect the political future.
Without a doubt, this is one of the best comments ever made on this blog, and I thank you, and welcome more such comments in the future!