Florida is going to go for Romney/Ryan. This idea that Ryan scares off senior voters is ridiculous. He has a high favorability rating among them. He appeals to them for the same reason he appeals to everyone else: he tells the truth, convincingly and articulately. To think that seniors, or voters in general, are going to just listen to the Democrat's scare tactics (ZOMG!! MEDISCARE!) is insulting. Romney has decided that the voters deserve the respect of a real conversation, and that they are smart enough to listen.

I predict Romney gets at least 300 Electoral College votes. You heard it here first.

"And I said I would have considered it they ran one that spoke to my values--none of them did."

And none of them will. You make it sound like there were options that could somehow get you when we're all aware that there weren't any. That's the whole point. *Picking Ryan is NOT a move to get your vote.*

"True enough he's a Mormon, but still, he's pretty much the stereotypical white upper-classman from New England with a religious background...WASM does't have quite the same ring to it. ;) (As for his Mormonism being a sticking point...I can definitely see that, given how different Mormonism is from other forms of Christianity, and the sort of press and attention it gets...it explains why Ryan might be on the ticket, but again, I maintain, it's NOT a pick that helps demographically, it doesn't bring in working class people, doesn't shed his wealthier-than-thou image, doesn't help to repair the damage that's been done to his chances at connecting with ANY base besides upper-middle class whites and and above...)"

Again, you're treating the American voter with a significant level of condescending disdain. Sure, one's ability to connect on a basic emotional level with voters can be a huge help in getting elected; see how well Obama energized people in 2008. But to act as though this matters so much that the mere pick of a VP candidate - which historically has NOT been a major impact on votes for president - would bring in people of a similar demographic is rather faulty. Perhaps if it were a presidential candidate with a particular symbolism to him/her (see again, Obama 2008), but not as a VP choice.

"They're not a hive mind, but you're being equally disingenuous if you think for a moment that MOST Latinos would vote for a man with Romney's immigration stance and given his past stances on issues regarding the Latino community."

There you go. That, right there. His *immigration stance* and *stances on issues regarding the Latino community.* Right here you're spot on. That's why Obama would carry more support from Latino voters than Romney. He wins *on the issues.*

Adding Rubio to Romney's ticket would not have fixed that. Rubio does break considerably from the GOP 'consensus,' if you will, on immigration, yes. But that's not going to be a major influencing factor on the Romney platform. And again, just picking somebody from a specific state doesn't guarantee the votes; that's the kind of simplistic, superficial analysis that grinds my gears so much every four years in this country. Past elections have not been decided on such factors. They haven't. It's just not true.

Not to mention that voting isn't as simple as "I vote for X because I like X." I can give you one personal example. Say Romney took Jindal instead. I'd probably vote for Romney. Why? Because it would get Jindal out of Louisiana and possibly give the not-absolutely-fucking-crazy wing of Louisianians a chance to get sanity back in the executive office. It doesn't make logical sense for me, as a Louisianian, to vote for a presidential ticket with my governor as the VP if I like my governor! Then he leaves! Similarly with Paul Ryan, if Wisconsin Republicans think Ryan is doing a good job representing them, why would they want Ryan to leave office? Voting motivations are entirely too complicated for this superficial drivel about "picking a Hispanic guy to get the Latino vote" or "pick a guy from Florida to get Florida votes." The data from past elections doesn't match it and the rational analysis of it doesn't hold water.

Re: VP Picks in general. I can only recall one VP pick having *that* much of an influence on the election. Unfortunately, it cost McCain his bid. Palin scared the ever living *fuck* out of the non-extreme right Republicans like myslef, so much so that we felt disenfranchised by our own party. It was bad enough that both candidates had health care reform agendas that were so fucked up as to make neither a tennable solution, but then to think Palin would have been a heartbeat away from the presidency... Oh *Hell* no!

"Obi, do you argue every single point of every conversation you have in real life, or only on the Internet?"

Oh yes, if I can, I'll argue every point I take issue with and think there's a chance to win.

I like arguing and debating, so it's not a strain for me...probably a strain for others, but then, those that know me well enough know when I'm arguing because I actually have a point I'm sincerely trying to make and when I'm arguing because, well, it's more fun than sitting around saying "Yeah...ummm...so yeah...how about those Lakers, huh?"

;)

If people don't want to talk, that's fine, too.

But I'm always ready to talk (and almost always have something to say...almost always. Gotta be honest and have a sense of humor about it.)

:)

"I predict Romney gets at least 300 Electoral College votes. You heard it here first."

Alright, noted.

But give me the math, dipplayer...how is he getting 300?

ABC Projects it right now 251-201 on "Solid" Red/Blue states in favor of Obama...

So if that's at all accurate (and looking at their map I'd have to say it pretty much is) how do you think Romney is getting 100 more electoral votes?

Even if he ran the table on all the swing states and somehow won the election that way it still wouldn't total 100, I believe, so how is Romney getting 100 more to at least reach 300 as you say?

According to RealClearPolitics, there are 110 toss up votes with Obama having 237 and Romney having 191. So if Romney gets 79 of the toss ups he wins. If Obama can keep Romney below 77 toss ups, he wins. 78 is a tie.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html

@TGM, Rand put up with notorious dimwit Alan Greenspan in her inner circle, no? I don't think Mr. Ryan's that much of a stretch.

@Draugnar:

Seems like a reasonable projection, I agree to that.

But my question to dipplayer is how he can possibly see Romney getting "at least 300" as he claims...300 wouldn't just be a victory, it'd be a MANDATE.

NO ONE is getting a Presidential Mandate-sized win out of this election...America's so split down the middle right now, I still think Obama will win (partially due to the fact incumbents almost always have a home-field advantage, as it were, and Obama for all his failings still does have some achievements to hang his hat on, and partially for the shortcomings I've already mentioned in Romney's ability to connect with key electorate bodies and even entirely within his own base) but it should be close...

NO WAY EITHER Obama or Romney gets 300 is what I said...I think everyone (minus dipplayer, apparently) would have to agree with that.

For 300, a key and reasonably large Red/Blue state (AT LEAST one) would have to turn for Romney/Obama, whoever you wish to say will win by 300.

And that's simply not happening this time around.

Romney wins everything McCain did. That's certain. That's 181.
Add NC, VA, FL, OH, IN and NV back to the Republican column. That's 273, enough to win, and not much of a stretch.
I add IA, WI, CO and NH as well, for a total of 302 EC votes.
I think PA is also a possibility.

I think this November will be a clear mandate for the Romney/Ryan ticket.

OK, everything McCain won, no arguments there.

NC--good chance Romney wins.
VA--that's a 50/50 toss-up right now, honestly it could go either way.
FL--sorry, not with Romney alienating Latinos and Ryan's Medicare stance alienating seniors
OH--again, 50/50 shot, either can take it.
IN--Why?
NV--Obama won it last time, I can't see it flipping...if it does, not many votes anyway...

So, is it plausible?

NC certainly is, OH, IN, and VA are all possible...I don't see FL or NV for Romney.

And then, the states you add:

NH--while it's the Northeast state most likely to turn...the region is Solid Blue basically.
CO--I don't see it flipping...why would it? Obama won it handily if memory serves...
IA--Possibly, it is a Midwest state, but Obama also won it last time...I'd say 50/50 too.
WI--Adding Paul Ryan to the ticket does help there (will say that) but still, very Blue state...
PA--Nah, that's a "solid" Lean-Blue, and I can't see that flipping either from Obama.

So.

Is Romney winning a possibility, electorally?
Oh, yes, again, I think it will be close.
Will it be difficult?
Yes, very, especially since I don't see FL or PA flipping, Romney will have to run the table.
But can Romney get 300 like you project?
No. Maybe I'll have egg on my face come November, but barring a major catastrophe for Obama, it'll be close, not 300 at all.

"we get another Vanilla conservative white male...That's not representative of America--AT ALL."

As of the 2010 census whites made up 72.4% of the American population. Race really should not be an issue here at all. You sound like a caricature. And the notion that Ryan is a dyed-in-the-wool conservative is completely false. He voted for medicare part d and tarp. He was in congress during the Bush years and toed the mainstream Republican line. The "radical" ryan budget does not balance the budget for most likely 30-40 years (some controversy here).

From a strictly political point of view, I don't think ryan was a bad choice. He can appeal to mid-western voters, he gives romney a better shot in wisconsin (maybe--polls in the next few weeks will show if this is true), and, yes, he can appeal to independents (he represents a centrist/democratic-leaning district).

I've read atlas shrugged. My view on Rand is probably the same as Ron Paul's. She can be seen as a champion of laissez-faire capitalism and individualism. If one is partial to that side of the spectrum, you can appreciate the arguments she makes without becoming a randian drone. And, with the discussion about Rand's philosophy, how has no one brought up Aristotle? Her entire philosophy was picked up straight from Aristotelian metaphysics and ethics. In response to a question, she recommended the three A's: "Aristotle, Aquinas, Ayn" (seriously).

Ascribing any type of even general political philosophy to Nietzsche is extremely speculative. People who attempt to do so rely on scattered quotes throughout his works. Walter Kaufmann in the mid-1900s to an extent brought into existence a new conception of a "nice Nietzsche." Others identify him with aristocratic leanings. Some deny that he was interested in politics at all.

Anyone familiar with foreign affairs who isn't a partisan hack in denial should know that Obama has steadfastly continued Bush's foreign policies, and even expanded others. Greatly expanded drone war in Pakistan. Drone war in Yemen. Bombed Libya. Supplying Syrian opposition. Increased sanctions against Iran. Near-unqualified support for Israel. Surge in Afghanistan (didn't he pledge to remove the troops?).

Add the fact that the country has to really "feel" a candidate, largely, to give a mandate...

For example, like him or not, many really WERE enamored with and following Obama passionately in 2008, and he won with 365 electoral votes, a clear Mandate.

Romney, on the other hand...

Not nearly as charismatic as '08 Obama, and the nation is far too sharply divided (the idea of a progressive, young, energetic President helped seep across party lines a bit in '08, and the fact Obama was running to become the first black president also undeniably added to his vote-getting power in '08) to elect Romney...

Who by all accounts hasn't even gotten a Mandate from his own base!

The Christian-Right aren't exactly completely enamored with Romney, dipplayer, and those who consider him Obama-Lite (no black/white pun intended) aren't exactly nailing up signs for him, either.

No chance Romney gets a Mandate. None.

Indiana was lost to Obama in January 2009. That it went for him at all was amazing. It's solidly Republican. Nevada Romney will win on the economy--really bad there--and the Mormon factor. Colorado and Virginia have been trending Romney's way. Ohio will go for him based on the economy.

Florida latinos are dominated by Cubans, not Mexicans or Central Americans. They don't care as much about immigration, and are more conservative. And seniors, as I've said already, are smart enough to see through the "throw grandma off the cliff" demagoguery that the Democrats are engaged in. R&R win Florida easily.

I'll simply say I think you're being far, FAR too optimistic, dipplayer, especially for a candidate who cannot even get a full Mandate of support from his own natural Republican base.

He may well win some of those states.

No way he wins them all.

You seem to think everything will trend towards the economy; on that front, Obama has problems, naturally, but Romney is by no means clean, either.

And I think there will be far more talk of social issues such as immigration and of rights issues as well, and on THAT front, Obama has a decided advantage, I think.

Lastly, no one has answered my question as to how they think Romney will possibility connect with the majority of voters when he is, again, basically a WASP with the "P" replaced by an "M" for Mormonism...

He's not winning the black vote.
He's not winning the LGBT vote (FOR SURE, given the CoLDS's stance of gays.)
He's not winning the Latino vote, not by a long shot.
And I don't think he'll poll particularly well with a lot of working-class people.

If this were McCain running this time (and I mean the McCain of 2008 running in 2012, so minus the extra 4 years to his already-advanced age and his defeat in 2008 and all those issues he's voted for since then) I think Obama would be in trouble.

It's not.

Romney is someone who the GOP went to every length NOT to pick, holding a ridiculous amount of primaries and debates to try and gets someone else, because:

1. His WASP status doesn't go oever well with many voters
2. The Latino issue (no, they are not a hive mind, PE, but he's still alienated the majority)
3. His reputation for being "Obama-Lite" doesn't go over well with some of the GOP base
4. His Mormonism doesn't go over well with ANOTHER part of the GOP base

Simply put:

Romney is NOT a strong GOP Candidate.

He's a compromise candidate because Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, Rich Santorum, and Ron Paul all fell through the cracks.

Truth be told, despicable though he is--

Santorum might have afforded a more dangerous opponent to Obama, with no "Obama-Lite" reputation and his being the darling of the Far-Christian-Right...

Add that to the fact it'd turn Pennsylvania from Leaning Blue to almost surely Red, and thus add another 20+ votes to the equation, and suddenly Obama is really in an even tighter race, and Florida and Ohio are suddenly even that much more crucial.

Romney will not win all the states you say he will.
He will not get 300.
He is not at all the ideal Republican candidate.
And I still don't see FL going Romney--Obama's Dreamer Act still applies to Cuban American immigrants (some come illegally too, remember, and have to float here often to do it, so Obama offering them a stay of deportation as it were went over VERY WELL...I maintain it was a great gesture by Obama and one I'm proud he took, but I won't deny, that Dreamer Act was smart POLITICALLY, that's a major ace up his sleeve in this race) and as for the seniors, it at least puts a group that might have been more solidly-Romney in play by bringing up the Medicare debate...watch--one bad soundbite by Paul Ryan on Medicare and it'll be all over CNN, MSNBC, ABC...probably not FOX, who'll be busy running their Romney 2012 Covera--I mean, presenting Fair and Balanced news, but regardless, it opens up a liability for Romney.

(And before anyone starts--yes, MSNBC is just as ludicrously-biased and not at all Fair and Balanced as FOX is, I was making a joke, no one start a flame war over it...can't we all just get along? ...Well, it's an election year, so no, but can't we all just pretend we're candidates at a debate and give each other utterly-false smiles and PRETEND to get along?)

;)

No Cuban comes here illegally as we have a policy in place now that males all immigration from Cuba legal.

Makes not males.

No Republican was going to win the Black, Gay, or Latino votes. Arguing about those makes no sense anyway. But those aren't going to swing the states I'm talking about.

The working class whites are solidly Republican now.

Mormonism will not be much of an issue, though I have zero doubt that after the Democrat accusations of Romney as being cancer-causing, grandma-killing, women-hating and greedy, that his "weird religion" will also be brought up before all is over.

Umm, what? Pretty much every election that's had even the slightest hint of referendum on the Ryan budget status has swung Democratic.

@Draug:

Fair enough, but I would say that the manner in which they come here is only "legal" because of our political standoff stance with Cuba; if they came that way via the same methods and were Mexican they'd be illegal.

So I ask for consistency--make it all illegal (not at all what I want, quite the opposite) or make it legal in both cases FOR NOW, and before people pounce on me, I AM NOT advocating full open borders, but simply admitting (as both parties have done) that the immigration system is broken and to grant amnesty and allowance for illegals UNTIL the system is fixed.

Whatever position you take in the illegal immigration debate (one I seem to increasingly find myself speaking on...on an off-topic note, I think I might actually enjoy working as an immigration lawyer or part of a PAC supporting immigrant and minority rights, particularly Latino rights in this country, they don't get enough of a voice, I feel, and I have plenty of voice to go around, so that might be something I will try and look into as an intern or for a career after college, assuming I never become the next D.H. Lawrence, of course) you must admit that the immigration system in this country is broken, and that the first step in fixing the immigration problem has to be to fix the immigration system itself.

WE WILL NOT rid the nation of illegal immigrants with a "Show Your Papers" policy, try it and see how well it goes over (Arizona just found out, and that was in a limited capacity and one state) and we won't be able to root them out, there are millions of them, you'd have to go door to door with state troopers or something of that nature to do it that way, and I have to think not even the most ardent right-wingers on this site would support such a policy, if for no other reason than the fact that it not only would seem to constitute a severe and almost unheard of breach of civil liberties BUT ALSO allow for the sort of big government kicking-in-the-front-door action our libertarians and gun owners on the site say they are against, and with good reason.

It simply will not work that way.

I'd say grant them amnesty and citizenship from a certain date chosen and THEN force them to pay taxes--

If they don't, then off they go to jail, just like any American who doesn't pay their taxes, and then they're no longer leeching off the system, as it were.

That's probably not at all a perfect solution, I don't pretend it is, but I do think, again, that we need to fix the immigration system first, and that given how impossible it will be to locate and forcibly deport millions of immigrants, that granting amnesty, like it or not, right or wrong, WILL have to be an option at some point.

Maybe an odd parallel, and probably not a perfect one--

But certain draft dodgers got a pardon from the US after Vietnam; there were really simply too many to punish them all, especially with the nation so divided.

It's a similar circumstance here--too many to effectively deal with the way we normally would and deport them all, and the nation is divided sharply about how it feels regarding these immigrants...clearly, I'm on one side of the fence and many of you are on the other.

(No Border pun intended.) :)

"No Republican was going to win the Black, Gay, or Latino votes. Arguing about those makes no sense anyway. But those aren't going to swing the states I'm talking about."

Florida and Nevada?

"The working class whites are solidly Republican now."

What's your basis for that statement? Because I've seen quite a few of them off-put by Romney's elite status and then again by this whole tax return fiasco...

To say nothing of the man's policies and the possibility that he has or may again allow for policies that will ship jobs overseas.

Try selling that one to the white workers in Ohio or Michigan or Wisconsin.

"Mormonism will not be much of an issue"

Again I'll have to disagree and ask the basis of that statement, as it's been pretty widely accepted that Romney's had a weakened Christian-Republican base especially when compared to Bush, McCain, and some of the other candidates this past primary season, again, taking Santorum as a particular example.

Should still be far and away enough to lock down the Red States and probably enough to give him the edge in NC going into the final weeks, but still, there IS less Christian-Right support for Romney than previous GOP candidates.

I addressed the case of Latinos in Florida already. Nevada I argued on the basis of the horrible economy there and the large Mormon presence. You over-generalize.

As for the working class, Google it, Obi. Romney is winning among whites without a college degree who make less than $100k/year.

As far as the "Christian Right", they appear to be excited enough to me, especially after the Chick-fil-A brouhaha. You don't think they are going to turn out, with a strongly pro-life, popular VP candidate, and with the HHS mandate on contraception and similar issues to encourage them?

And I disagree with both assessments--

I think you understate the importance of the Latino vote or the Latino vote as it pertains to Obama in Florida, and far overstate the Mormon effect on the Nevada electorate.

I think you are over-generalizing as well, from the other end.

As for the working class, I will look into it, but I contend that even if Romney has sizable votes in some areas there, he still has areas to attack on his business plan and overseas job shipping, and still is vulnerable there.

As for the Christian-Right, I'm not saying they won't turn out, I'm saying the support isn't AS strong as it has been with previous candidates--do you deny that?

Shhhh, don't point out to dipplayer the brobdignagian margins amongst likely voting women in swing states in favor of Obama. It'll be kind of fun to check out his surprise that women actually do kinda like contraception.

+1 for the Jonathan Swift reference AND pertinent data. :)

@Bob

"Rand put up with notorious dimwit Alan Greenspan in her inner circle, no? I don't think Mr. Ryan's that much of a stretch."

He's changed his views substantially since though. Greenspan as is wouldn't be welcome in the slightest (particularly given Rand's temper)

So obi, what exactly have you read by Rand? And why is she relevant in this thread again?

The women for whom contraception will be the defining issue this November would have voted Obama anyway.

What, women don't care about the economy, the deficit, and the horrible job performance of the incumbent? It is the Left that dehumanizes women and reduces them to their reproductive organs.

Says the guy who defends the party wanting to shove shafts down women's vaginas by order of the state, and whose spokesman calls a young woman a whore and a slut for wanting access to contraception.