Romney’s narrow path to victory
Electoral votes by state
So I’ve been playing with the Electoral College map in my usual, obsessive way, and here’s my latest find.
If President Barack Obama wins all the states where he’s currently leading in polls consistently by at least 5 points, he comes very close to a win, capturing 266 out of the 270 Electoral College votes he needs for a second term.
In many of those states — like Michigan, Wisconsin and New Mexico — the President is actually leading by double-digit margins, and commands over 50% support. So clearly, Mr. Obama holds a powerful strategic lead.
Does that mean it’s game over for Mitt Romney? No. As many In Boxers have pointed out, it’s still very early days.
So far, Romney hasn’t shown the kind of talent on the stump that has allowed other campaigners — politicians of the caliber of Reagan and Clinton, say — to recapture the larger narrative.
The lengthy Republican primary is also limiting dangerously the time that he’ll have to pivot from his conservative talking points to a more moderate general-election message.
But even if the campaign dynamic doesn’t change dramatically in tone and momentum, the Republican does still have a path to victory.
Here is what may be the most plausible scenario for how Romney could unseat an incumbent president.
First, of course, he has to hold everything that is currently expected to fall in the “red” column, including states like Arizona and Missouri that some Democrats think might conceivably be put in play.
Republicans have already come very close to losing Virginia, a state that was once purplish or downright red.
Polls show Obama leading in that southern-border state consistently by close to double-digit margins, thanks largely to Democratic support in growing northern suburbs just outside of Washington DC.
One more significant erosion of that caliber on the national map and the game is probably up.
Still, if Team Romney can hold onto the territory that now looks safe, they have a shot. They then have to run the table in these remaining battlegrounds: Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, and New Hampshire.
That kind of sweep won’t be easy, of course. Romney currently trails (by small and inconsistent margins) in several of those states, including Florida and Ohio. But the door clearly remains open to making an argument to those important voters.
It’s also worth noting that for Romney to recapture New Hampshire would be a nice coup.
His power base within the Republican Party is set solidly in the Northeast, but he’s expected to win almost nothing in that region during the general election.
Even if he wins all those states, Romney would emerge with a scant victory of 272 Electoral College votes. So there is, as they say, zero margin for error.
I think it’s a fact that at this stage of the game, the Republican map — and Mitt Romney’s room to maneuver — is much, much smaller than most pundits have acknowledged.
But a win is a win and during the primary Romney has shown that he’s comfortable eking out a victory on points, rather than a knock-out.
Tags: analysis, election12, politics
.jpg)
Correction: Lee Enterprise’s CEO got $500,000 and the CFO got $250,000.
My mistake.
“[Obama’s] stimulus was largely a handout to the states, it didn’t DO anything.”
Mervel, do you have any idea how a stimulus works? Did the states desperately NEED money in order to reduce layoffs? Are public sector layoffs good for the economy?
The money “handed out” to the states paid people’s salaries. Those salary payments, in turn, went into groceries, mortgage payments, clothing, car payments, etc., etc. Those expenditures helped save other, private sector jobs.
What, exactly, would qualify as “DOING something”? Does it have to go directly into the pocket of a CEO to count as “DOING something”?
Is that the Mark of Bret I see?
Thanks for stopping by.
Walker,
Exactly it did nothing for the infrastructure, it did not build much of anything. Unlike the investments in the past which went for things like building an interstate system, building roads, bridges airports, new high schools and so forth.
Knuckle, I misspoke I meant that if Obama is re-elected and stimulus or eternal stimulus is his economic plan which it seems to be we are looking at 8 years of “stimulus”, it by definition is no longer stimulus but just perpetual spending.
What I meant by EXON anology was that giving government money to the drug companies in the US through this affordable care corporate give away program; is no different from giving money to EXON or any other energy company for gas. Actually it is worse in that the drug companies are overcharging far far above what energy companies overcharge. We pay close to 50%-100% more for the same drugs as other countries, simply because THEY CAN and no one in government will stand up to them the affordable care act just cements the payoff into the future with our taxes.
Romney has a great case against this guy. His main problem I think is going to be on the wars and his immigration stands. If he moderates those he can win.
I agree about the drug companies but you must be forgetting that President Bush is behind the law that says the government can’t negotiate drug prices with the manufacturers.
As far as Romney having a case against Obama I just don’t see that their policies are that far apart. One difference is that Romney wont stand behind his own health care policy.
Mervel writes: “Exactly it did nothing for the infrastructure, it did not build much of anything. Unlike the investments in the past which went for things like building an interstate system, building roads, bridges airports, new high schools and so forth.”
Time Magazine, Sept. 13, 2010″
“Once upon a time, Republicans hated President Obama’s stimulus package because it wasn’t pouring enough money into infrastructure. In July, in front of a giant road sign covered in red tape, GOP Representatives complained that only 1% of the package’s $48 billion for transportation had been spent. “As funds sit idle, so do workers,” said John Mica of Florida, the top Republican on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Jean Schmidt of Ohio hoisted a bright orange worker’s vest for the cameras: “I want to see this all over the highways!” Back then, even House minority leader John Boehner of Ohio was calling for “shovel-ready projects that will create much needed jobs.”
“Not anymore. Obama’s new proposal to pour another $50 billion into “roads, railways and runways” has gotten no support whatsoever from Republicans. They’re now marching in lockstep against all stimulus spending; they say the government simply can’t create jobs, except through tax cuts. Of course, Obama has proposed new tax cuts as well, and Republicans aren’t backing those either. These days, they’d march in lockstep against apple pie if Obama served it.”
Time Magazine, , Sept. 13, 2010
thankfully walker’s already on it, but it can’t be emphasized enough how misguided this is:
no, economic aid to state and local governments is one the most effective forms of stimulus there is! it’s one of the very best ways to promote employment, since it prevents jobs losses in the first place.
one way to think about the inadequacy of the stimulus is that it’s basically been cancelled out by a contraction at the state and local level:
as something of a followup, have a looky at this, where there’s a nice chart showing total public employment during the last four recoveries from recession.
this recovery has been the only one where the total number of public employees has gone down. the strongest recovery, which came after the 1981 recession under reagan, saw the strongest gains in public employment. there might be, you know, something of a relationship here.
Honestly. I really don’t want to jump on but isn’t the argument always that the government is forcing unfunded mandates onto lower levels of government? So wouldn’t it be good to have stimulus money handed back to the states so that they could pass that money back down to the local level and avoid taxes to some extent?