1 Down, 2 to Go

Well, my “Romney will win the nomination prediction” (made way before it was cool) was correct, even though some of my state by state prognostications were a bit off (see the comments here)

So I thought I’d try my luck at a couple more:

1) Romney will select Chris Christie as his running mate.

2) Romney-Christie will defeat Obama-Biden by winning 270-268 in a map that looks like this. Β (If you don’t want to click study it in detail, it is the same as the Obama/McCain map only with Romney adding Β IN, NC, FL, VA, NH, and OH, plus the one congressional district in NE that Obama won).

Am I crazy?


  1. No crazier than a lot of others if you are. I disagree with some of your assumptions, though.

    1- I don’t think Christie has a VP-style ego. Add that to the thinking of geographical ticket-balancers and we’re far more likely to see Romney pick from west of Chicago or south of the Ohio River, although Indiana has a truly magnificent cast of worthy choices.
    2- I think OH is in play more than you think. Labor has tasted blood in the water and is likely to turn out in force to thrash the waters some more.
    3-VA isn’t flipping this year; neither is NC. I don’t see NH going red, either.
    4- Indiana is a dead lock to go GOP, although a strong GOTV in September and October could counter that. The suppression laws they passed last year make a last minute charge unlikely but the Rule of the 7Ps still holds.
    5- My prediction is that Romney picks a woman with unassailable TEA Party creds from south and west. You want me on a limb? Susanna Martinez. She–in the mind of the GOP matchmakers–solves the woman problem and the Latino problem elegantly.

  2. jimspice says:

    Re: G-5

    I strongly recommend Jan Brewer. No, no, wait! Sharon Angle. Yes, definitely Angle.

  3. All of the states I am assuming will flip will be close…. OH probably the closest of all. OH is over 20% Catholic. After Obama’s actions, if Romney picks a running-mate well liked among Catholics (like Christie), there will be a lot of people who have never supported a Republican in their whole life who vote for Romney.

    Another aspect of picking Christie… it puts NJ in play. No really, it does. There was a poll (that usually skews left) that shows Romney-Christie within 6 of Obama-Biden. I’m not predicting that Romney would win there, but he would make the DNC spend way more money than they want defending the Garden State.

    With this ticket, there’s just so many states in play… CO, NV, NM, IA, WI, maybe MI and PA. I have Obama holding all of those, but in winning those battles, he’s going to lose some other ones.

  4. I don’t think it will be Christie. He is looking ahead to 2016, as is Santorum.

    As for Susana Martinez, Adding a token woman to the ticket from a small western state to “balance” an out-of-touch left-leaning GOP nominee would be as successul in 2012 as it was in 2008.

    Here’s the real story. Independent women are returning to the Democratic fold.

    Blame Rick Santorum, Rush Limbaugh, and the whole Sandra Fluke affair. Until the GOP does a complete purge of the religious extremists, they will struggle with Independent women and Latinos in presidential election years. With potentially 4 Supreme Court nominees over the next 8 years, it’s a real concern. We could have a 7-2 left-leaning court before we know it.

  5. Huntsman! πŸ˜‰

  6. Well, looking at that map, there’s the rub for Romney and the Republicans, not just in 2012 but going forward to 2016 and 2020.

    If you concede Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada to Democrats due to the increasing Latino population, then Romney has to win Ohio, Florida AND New Hampshire in order to win, whereas Obama just has to pick off one.

    I suspect Romney may indeed win Florida. Maybe even New Hampshire, although I’m more doubtful about that. But then again, if Obama does manage to keep Ohio (and I think he will), then Romney, again, would have to run the table in Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado, or take any two plus Iowa.

    And, if the “Latino Effect” makes Texas competitive, that could potentially keep Republicans out of the White House for a generation, also flipping several Texas House seats in the process. Now, clearly there are a lot of moving parts that have to go right for that dream scenario to come to fruition, but if it does, oh boy. We might even see Republicans begging for National Popular Vote if Texas ever went Democratic.

  7. How does a Republican compete with the following scenario? I entered your yard, I set up my tent, I want to stay, I want you to give me finanical aid, if you don’t agree you’re racist and when I gain the right to vote I’ll never vote for your party.

  8. J. Strupp says:

    Yeah, I’m not too sure how you compete with that scenario, Leapin. Making the generalization that most Latinos are illegal, race baiting squatters who leach off the government. Gonna be a tough one that’s for sure. Good luck with that. πŸ™‚

  9. The GOP needs to stop being the party of southern Baptists and Evangelicals. Plain and simple. Everything else flows from that. It’s the Santorums and “Christian Coalition” that make GOP candidates unelectable by forcing them to take extreme positions on abortion, birth control, immigration, and same-sex unions.

    The GOP is supposed to be a pro-free market party. Free immigration BUILT this country. Sealing the doors just hastens our decline. Sadly this is practiced by both sides (witness Obama’s treatment of Canada and their desire to join the Trans Pacific Partnership). However, it’s most clearly associated with the GOP.

    Similarly, it’s the evangelicals who scare away the independents and socially liberal would-be Republicans by driving away candidates who don’t promise to ban abortion or same-sex marriage. Face it. Abortion is legal and its going to stay that way. You will never get 38 states to agree to amend the Constitution. 25 years from now, we’ll look at same-sex unions the same way we look at interracial marriage today. The GOP is supposed to be about getting government out of our lives. The more time they snoop around our bedrooms, the less relevant they’ll become.

    In summary, there aren’t enough people who are “fairly” conservative.

  10. Bill Kurtz says:

    I’d only disagree with you about 2 states.
    After the smackdown of Kasich last year, it’s hard to see Romney winning Ohio. And Virginia becomes harder for Republicans every day, as the D.C. suburbs grow and become a bigger chunk of the state, while some of the most conservative areas on the western and southern borders stagnate.
    If there are any surprises for Obama, they could be Arizona (with enough Latino turnout) or a deep south state like Georgia or Mississippi (if enough evangelicals refuse to support a Mormon and stay home).

  11. Alex, dang!

    My very first reaction is probably too crass to put to writing here, but let’s just say it was along the lines of thanks for letting me in on the a Dem political strategist’s favorite fantasy.

    KPOM – woot! Thank you. I like that comment. I like the substance of that comment. I have no problem with open legal immigration. I have a big problem with people who want to pop in and out undocumented. Your argument is better explained as a desire to lift the numbers and increase the documentation to manage the current immigrant demand. Fine.

    But there will be paperwork, just like there has always been paperwork. And if you screw up I get to throw your law-breaking fanny out. πŸ™‚

  12. Excellent discussion; thanks.

    KPOM and others especially speak to me, because I am an Independent and a woman not that happy with Democrats after the debacle of 2008. But that pales compared to this Republican debacle today, as was brought home to me by the @##%%!! robocalls for the last week. Romney’s, eh — but I would like to see someone who does better on the economy than what we’ve seen for the last few years.

    But omigod, I got one from a group for Santorum, DefendChristians.org, and it was DISGUSTING in its hatred. If those are Christians, I’m not one anymore — and I won’t even consider voting for a party that would ally with such people.

    So: The Ryan plan is going to lose voters from their 50s on up, and the hatred of wimmen, gayz, etc., is going to lose voters in their 20s and 30s. Good luck with getting all of those states by appealing to voters in their 40s!

    What a mess. So I still await the party that speaks to me on economic and social issues — or at least speaks to me on economic issues without driving me away with hatred on social issues. Say, a fairly conservative party. πŸ™‚

  13. Randy in Richmond says:

    Yea, let’s have the Republicans get rid of the 16 million or so Southern Baptists and the 1 in 4 US adults who identify themselves as Protestant Evangelical. That’s how to get a President elected. Somebody like say, John McCain or Bob Dole.

    And KPOM, what do you mean when you say, “the same way we look at interracial marriage today”? Who is we ?


  14. Gee. You made me laugh. I have a girlfriend who declared this morning that she’s having “Lauren” withdrawals from the Romney campaign. I saw a guy on Twitter last week who said he’d had so many calls from “her” that he wondered if he owed child support yet.

    It was really awful, wasn’t it?

  15. @Randy, does any rational person today oppose interracial marriage or think it should be illegal (the way it was in many states in 1970 when SCOTUS struck down those laws)? It will be like that about same-sex unions in 40 years.

    It’s fine by me to be evangelical. But don’t try to impose that on the rest of us. It doesn’t harm you if a same-sex couple gets a civil union or marriage.

    The sad thing is the GOP was on the right side of the moral issue with the whole Sandra Fluke controversy (i.e. no one should be forced to pay for someone else’s birth control), but they overplayed their hand and made it look like they wanted to restrict access altogether. That’s partly because Rush called Fluke a slut, and partly because Santorum decided to turn the whole thing into a crusade against birth control.

    @Cindy, yes, we need legal immigration, but let’s consider what that really means. 98% of the people who arrived at Ellis Island got in. The only substantive requirements were a) being able to work, b) not being a subversive, c) not having an incurable disease. As long as you were healthy, weren’t trying to overthrow the government, and weren’t likely to become a ward of the state, you got in. That’s how it should be now. There are too many restrictions, not just on migrant workers from Mexico coming to harvest crops, but also engineers and scientists from India and China, many of whom come here because of the quality of our universities, and who used to stay here to find work, but now are likely to go back home, partly because things have improved there, but largely because we won’t give them visas or a path to citizenship.

  16. KPOM, you are on the mark about immigration policy now. I sponsored my daughter-in-law (when she still was a fiancee), a highly skilled scientist whom we ought to be happy to have here — but even with a willing spouse-to-be waiting, a solid financial sponsor (me), her own skills, etc., the wait was interminable, and the cost was almost as high as the unbelievable hoops that she and we had to hurdle through. I swear, the paperwork is as complicated as it is owing to the immigration lawyers’ lobby (we handled it to save more thousands of dollars in addition to the hefty federal fees).

    And ever since, every letter from INS is just, well, unnecessarily threatening and nasty, even when the content turns out to be innocuous. I find it offensive that a family member of this citizen is treated this way, especially when she brought great skills that have helped to grow a new industry to the U.S. and more jobs here.

    I\’m all for everyone going through legal immigration, as she did — but not with the unnecesarily legalisms, costs, and nastiness.

  17. @Gee, that’s a common complaint. We also drive away a lot of tourism for the same reason. The GOP is fixated on our southern border, and wants to apply a one-size-fits-all approach. Similarly, Democrats are beholden to the unions, and so will nominally “fight” in terms of keeping the southern border open, but are otherwise equally just as bad on immigration.

    Here’s a sobering map for the GOP.

    Consider that Colorado, Iowa, and Pennsylvania aren’t really swing states, and you’ll see that Obama wins easily unless Romney runs the table on all the other “swing” states. Santorum is campaigning for 2016. Christie, Daniels etc. are looking smarter than ever for sitting this one out.

  18. Hey! So Obama wins again KPOM. How does that make your America any better? (And you left out Ryan. πŸ™‚ )

  19. @Cindy, it doesn’t. I don’t really think Romney would be any better, politically, than Obama, apart from possibly his SCOTUS picks (there’s a very good chance that Ginsberg won’t last another 4 years, though it’s more likely she’ll find the strength if Romney is elected). In terms of policies and governing philosophy, Romney and Obama are fairly similar.

    My point, though, is that the GOP has only itself to blame for the predicament it’s in. Obama should be toast given $4.60 gas in his hometown and 8.2% unemployment. That he’s nearly got this race sewn up shows just how badly the GOP has alienated independents, and particularly working women. The whole Sandra Fluke controversy is just one element of it.

  20. That, dear KPOM, is a Dem talking point if I ever heard one. Independent women are not wrapped around Sandra Fluke’s ovaries. I promise.

  21. For whatever reason, the gender gap is real, Cindy. Social issues undoubtedly play a role. That said, Romney isn’t doing as well among men in current polls as Bush II did in 2000 and 2004. So the gender gap is perhaps smaller this year, but not in a way that helps the GOP.

    A challenge that the GOP has is that, given the state of the economy, it’s emotionally a lot easier to run on a populist campaign. Explaining how freer trade with Canada or lower tax rates creates jobs is a tough emotional argument in any year, but even more so in a year like 2012. Plus, since the recession was widely blamed on Bush, even 4 years out it still has some staying power. Obama can’t blame everything on Bush, but at the same time, he can still claim that it’s a factor in why things aren’t improving as quickly as he’d like.

  22. …and Martinez asks that she not be considered, due to family reasons. My guess is that her wishes will be obliged by the Romney camp