« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Heed this warning- Obama can win in 2012

By: tbrickert (Diary)  |  November 17th, 2011 at 09:19 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

There are many on the right who believe if the Republicans nominate a ham sandwich, it will defeat President Obama in 2012. They believe President Obama’s re-election will be a redux of President Carter’s attempt in 1980. President Carter won five states( and DC) in his attempt to be re-elected: Minnesota, West Virginia, Rhode Island and Georgia for a total of 49 electoral college votes.

I guarantee President Obama will win more than five states and has a lock on a lot more than 49 electorial college votes. Let us take a look at the Electorial college map from 2008:

Obama defeated McCain 365-173.

Let’s start with the good news. Due to changes in the electoral college, if this same result occurred now, Obama’s victory would be narrowed to 359-179.

I am also making the assumption every state won by McCain will support the Republican nominee. 

In the race to 270 electorial votes, the Republican nominee starts with 179.

Now, I am going to give theses states to President Obama as locked up: CA,CT,DE, DC, HI, IL, MA, MD,NY, OR, RI,WA,VT for a lock on 168 electorial college votes.

I should probably give NJ’s 14 electorial college votes to Obama for a total of 182, but I live in New Jersey and  I like to think there is a chance, so indulge me.

Now this leads me to the states President Obama has the advantage: ME, MI, MN, NJ, NV, OH, PA ,WI this brings his total to 270 and a second term.

Governor Christie warned Republicans on Monday:

Anyone who underestimates the president underestimates at their own peril …(Democrats) know how to campaign, they know politics. … People who believe he’s a shoo-in loser are wrong.

I think I just proved by the numbers, why Governor Christie is correct.

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • heraklios

    Given that the GOP Establishment is pushing us to put up our weakest candidate as the nominee. If we can unite around a conservative then I think Obama’s chances go way down

    • sticktotheconstitution

      ..and Romney would be the weakest candidate. No one can trust an inconsistent man for president.

      • determinedconservative

        If Romney takes the nomination, I’m going to be so depressed. It’s like double trouble: he will have a hard time beating Obama when he can’t draw a clear contrast especially on ObamaCare; and even if he does win, I don’t trust him to pursue conservative policies.

        On the electoral math in the diary: isn’t Ohio at least a pretty favorable state for Republicans? And there’s tons of electoral votes there, so just like in 2004 that’s probably the whole ballgame right there. Haven’t they been hit hard by unemployment?

        • heraklios

          I’m from N. Kentucky so I know Ohio pretty well. Most GOPers ther lean pretty conservative and don’t want a New England RINO on their ticket.

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    BHO has about a 5/8 probability of winning. It’s tough getting rid of even an unlikeable office holder.

  • exitsfunnel

    A year ago I was using the ham sandwich line but I think that most Republicans understand that things have shifted at least slightly away from us over the last year mostly as the result of our terrible slate of candidates.

    I think that Romney would be a slight favorite. Perry is a wild card. It’s hard to guess what kind of general election candidate he’d be but I think that the downside is considerably larger than the up. None of the others are even remotely credible. Newt Gingrich? Herman Cain? Are you kidding me? They’d not only lose the presidential race, they’d cost the GOP the House as well.

    -exits

  • conservativecurmudgeon

    But he won’t, –unless we Conservatives nominate a mushy-moderate, or if the nominee makes a monumental, catastrophic tactical or oratorical blunder.

    And while it’s important not to be over-confident, and even begin to surrender geography on the battlefield, the American people have risen against authoritarian statism, and will not regard this election as simply another, run-of-the-mill ho-hum contest. They are engaged in a manner unlike ANY election in my lifetime: A primary debate on a cable-news channel draws 8 MILLION viewers? It’s unheard-of, and it demonstrates the rage and animation this President has evoked, and how we are verily ACHING to remove him, by ballot, from office.

    Many, many Americans correctly view this election as existential. There is a real, fundamental understanding that the United States will cease to exist as it has traditionally been understood and constituted if it is subjected to another four years of an Obama administration.

    There is a pall over the land. It is palpable. People are disgusted, and seething. I’ve not heard a normal American defend this president with any vigor for over two years now, and he has utterly, and completely, lost the independent, and the private labor vote.

    I cannot envision Barack Obama earning more than 48,000,000 popular votes (the total for Bill Clinton in 1996, and the core, solid Democrat constituency) this election. It is beyond my ken, and I have far, far more faith in the American people than to consider them going forever down the path of decline, and bankrupted socialism. I refuse to accept it, period.

    • lineholder

      how well we (meaning our side) can present ourselves as being capable of providing the kind of leadership that this nation is in need of.

      You’ve heard the comments made lately about Obama’s “lack of leadership”, right? I’ve made the same type of comments myself in the past, more than once. I stopped making them after I had a conversation with my younger son, who is apolitical for all intents in purposes. His comment to me was, “If you’re under someone else’s authority, there is ALWAYS some to type of leadership being provided. There’s never a total lack of leadership”.

      He’s right, ‘curmudgeon. The kind of leadership that has been provided by Obama isn’t the type of leadership called for in this situation, given the issues our nation is facing. People may refer to it as a “lack of leadership”, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that NO type of leadership exists.

      I think the leadership factor will end up being a significant issue in 2012. I hope that all our candidates will find a way to communicate what kind of leadership in specific they would be striving to provide if elected as President. Draw attention to it and compare it to the type of leadership that has existed under Obama. Set something out there that can earn and gain the public’s confidence.

      I have faith in the people of this nation….I just think they’re cynical, weary, and more than a bit vulnerable right now. The Dems are shrewd and will play on the vulnerabilities if given a chance.

      • lineholder

        to curmudgeon’s post above.

        • conservativecurmudgeon

          But, I think I must disagree with your son, at least on his choice of words.

          I don’t think we can conflate the word “leadership” with “control”. Yes, Barack Obama controls the vast organism and the instrumentalities of the Federal Government. He barks orders here, and thus, there are reactions over there (kind of a Newtonian proposition).

          But, he does not “lead”. If he “leads” at all, it is in the context of this force. He “pushes”, which, by definition isn’t leading at all: It is force or coercion.

          Leadership implies virtue. It implies courage. Barack Obama has neither quality. In fact, when his “signature” legislative achievements were metastasizing, he was perfectly willing to hide behind the skirts of Nancy Pelosi, and allow her to formulate actual policy (such as it was) and defend it and promote it. Obama was content to play golf, take vacations, and make an occasional speech. Even now, when there is talk of yet ANOTHER government shut-down (pray though we may that it would happen), Barack Obama doesn’t show the least proclivity to sit down and get dirt under his fingernails, and actually GOVERN. He flies off the southeast Asia to play the PART of a president. He doesn’t actually PRESIDE. Thus, he does not lead. He pushes, he forces by the explicit powers of his office, not the implicit powers of his ideas.

          And yes, we must absolutely make his abysmal, disgusting, foul, vile and profane record the meat of the electoral contest. Every time his campaign sez “look at the GOP’s candidate’s racist rock, or his sexual harassment charges”, or what have you, our response must NOT be a response at all: It must be a wading into Obama with a non-stop assault on his record: “I can’t say anything about a rock in a field somewhere, but I sure as heck can point to about 50,000 jobs that would be happening today if it weren’t for Obama’s NLRB case against Boeing, and his Interior Department harassing Keystone and other energy provides”.

          We manifestly must NOT engage Obama’s narrative. THAT is the only way he wins. And he knows it.

        • aesthete

          I don’t think that leadership is really what’s needed in most of our domestic issues — at least, not the way most people say it. The way most people would say it, Obama needs to get in their with both hands, feel peoples’ pain, and generally be there doing things to be a good leader. Me? I think that the problem comes when politicians suffocate the economy through their “leadership”. The private sector and individuals should be taking the initiative, and B Obama should get out of the way; maybe clap while real men and women go about solving their own problems without Obama’s “help” or “leadership”.

          Foreign policy is a different story, but even then I want leadership less than I would like to see a pro-US policy. I don’t need the US “leading” in Libya; not when they know not what they’re leading us into. I want to see presidents doing things that benefit Americans, rather than looking out for Europe’s interests or the interests of any other foreign party.

    • determinedconservative

      And you are so right: people are aching for someone to come in and really upset the Beltway apple cart. A classic pandering politician right out of Central Casting (*cough*Romney*cough) is just not going to offer the opportunity to clear house that people are crying out for.

  • nfloridapatriot

    and we all better work really really hard in gaining a more conservative house and retaking the senate

  • donald_24

    Romney’s #1 liability, if he is the nominee, is his time at Bain Capital. That is precisely what destroyed him in 1994, even when he was ahead of Ted Kenendy in the polls. History has a bad habit of repeating itself.