For a bit of background on this topic, first consult my previous diary where I preview this scenario.
Using this interactive map, I have outlined a scenario where a Romney-Christie ticket could win the White House and not have to win the battleground states of IA, CO, NM, NV, or even AZ. Consider the far west states of CO, AZ, NV, and NM lost to the Democrats temporarily, due to immigration the fact that Latinos are currently polling Democratic 2:1 nationally and 6:1 for Obama over any GOP candidate, startling but true as it may be.
You will notice that the electoral vote is tied 269-269 but for you Constitutional scholars out there, we all know what happens to the Presidency under this unlikely scenario, and that being the race gets thrown to the House of Representatives which we all know which party overwhelmingly controls that chamber. Thus, we can predict what the end result would be for a Romney-Christie ticket under this scenario.
1. He, being a moderate, but a likeable and competent moderate, can help us win swing states as a party and put us in play in others that a Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich at the top of the ticket could not. New Jersey isn't a swing-state per se, but something tells me not to write it off this fall. After all, Christie, an unapologetic Republican won this state in 2009,which no one saw coming. If he can just win his home state for Romney that would allow the aforementioned states to be sacrificed and we still win.
Like Romney, we are going to need Republicans who can go into swing states and flip them red. We are going to need someone who can talk to the soccer-mom's and suburban mom's in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and not alienate them the way Santorum keeps doing. With Romney many more states are in play than if he wasn't on the ticket.
2. Notice under this map-scenario, Romney and Christie would have to run the table in the South, meaning all eleven former Confederate states as well as Missouri and Kentucky which had participants on each side.
3. Ohio and Indiana are an absolute must for Republicans otherwise this scenario doesn't work. The sad thing is, we have to have everything fall into place just so, with no margin for error, yet the Democrats don't need Ohio or Florida, or even North Carolina or Virginia if they pull off a few surprises out West and take Iowa for example.
With the very popular Christie on the ticket, I think this has a chance. But we also have to consider he has said over and over he doesn't want to be anything but Govenor of New Jersey, a state he very clearly loves, nor was he "ready" to be President, but I think if his nominee, who he endorsed long-ago asked him to run on the ticket for the good of the country, I'd like to think he would step up.
Another risk of this ticket, is Tea Party/ultra conservative voters may feel slighted in that this ticket appears to have two moderates on the ticket thus not offering them any option. While this is only their opinion, the point of the V.P. is to balance the ticket and appeal to the base, as well as win, and I think Christie can do all three. Some of his strength's are Romney's weaknesses and vice-versa and he's a very good commuunicator with few gaffes so I think he'd be a safe, articulate pick.
What about Maine's proportial electoral votes?
You will also note there is a second possible path to the Presidency under a Romney-Christie ticket that being the four proportial votes that Maine uses in awarding their delegation. Under this scenario, all the GOP would need is one of these four electoral votes to push them over the top, but I am personally not counting on it.
It is also true that Nebraska splits their votes but I see very little chance of this being a factor in that crimson red state.
Pennsylvania electoral college change update
If any Pennsylvanian could provide an update on the progress of this proposed change that would be great since this strategy could prove to be the difference in an election year. In intentially include liberal blogger Nate Silver's summary so as to get the left-leaning prospective on the plan and how it might affect Republicans in the future. Some of his suggestions (#1, #3, #5 I agree with) but (#2, 4) disagree.
Pennsylvania has 20 electoral votes, after the 2010 census and is losing population (thank God) as a blue state. Because it hasn't went red since 1988 and Ronald Reagan, basiscally we conservatives have to write off this state every four years. If drawn out proportionally, even if Republicans only managed to pick up 6-8 of these 20 votes, consider them a bonus since under normal rules, they wouldn't be in play and thus we wouldn't get them. Silver mentions how in 2008 we'd have got 10 of the then-21 electoral votes. Whatever we get out of this new scenario would be a gift as I see it. Finally, it would give Republicans in the state a voice after being disfranchised in every Presidential Election since 1988.
Sure, it could hurt PA Republican Congressional and Senate candidate's chances (#1) that election cylce but that's a risk we'd have to take. #2 I disagree with (hurting the integrity of the Electoral College by adding another proportional state) because it would still only make 3 such states out of 50 (or is it 57?) :) Its not like this proportional thing is going to catch on and become popular (Mr. Silver hints as much) so what does it matter if one more state does it? After 236 years as a nation, we still only would have 3 such states suggesting voters are generally happy with the way votes are allocated now.
#3 motivating Democrats nationally and state-wide is a definate possibility, especially state-wide but again, any EV's we pick up would be a bonus and I'd take them, so we'd just have to let the chips fall where they may and see how 'galvanizing' it may turn out to be. Also, its not like this happened when Maine or Nebraska decided to do the same things in their states with motivating the Democrats there and nationwide in the year's those proportional states became law. #5 long-term costing Republicans their jobs, we'd just have to wait and see.
#4 as far as I am concerned PA is not a swing-state unlike Silver suggests. Even if it were to "demote" themselves by having less electoral votes "in play" I don't see how they are in play anyway since they've went to the Democrat since 1988 so why not try something new? If anything it would make PA more in play since Republicans would be vying to shore up as much of the new-found electoral votes now up for grabs that they could. They'd probably spend more time, effort, and money in the state knowing now at the very least they'd get something of a reward for all that work and no longer write it off.
In my next diary, I'll outline a similar scenario where Republicans could win the White House without New Jersey, or precious Ohio---yes I said it. But the far-West would definately have to be had (a far more unlikely scenario), and you can already see some of the given scenarios which would have to happen (scenario #2).