Crunching the numbers: Santorum does better against 'Populist' Obama in the Electoral College than Romney?
This all may be moot if Mitt Romney wins Republican primaries in Michigan and Ohio... but the phenomenal political numbers cruncher, Nate Silver - who runs the FiveThirtyEight blog - argues Rick Santorum might do worse than Romney with the popular vote, but might be able to flip some blue-collar Midwestern states in the Electoral College. This would potentially create a scenario of an Electoral College coronation for the guy who got FEWER popular votes.
Meanwhile, Jonathan Cohn at The NEW REPUBLIC hits on a theme I've been thinking about:
Is it wise for Romney - politically and even factually - to characterize the Federal Government's rescue of General Motors and Chrysler as similar to the bail-outs of big financial institutions - "Crony capitalism"?
A key point ignored on this blog is the issue of electability.
While there is constant media promotion of Romney and Gingrich, there has been no discussion on whether either one of them is electable in a general election against Obama. Romney has serious credibility issues with Republicans because of his liberal track record (ie. drawing up the blueprint for Obama's healthcare mandate) so Romney would not be very electable for the GOP nomination, let alone the general election. Gingrich is such a vile and loathesome figure he is certain to repel voters and force Republican faithful to stay home on election day since they find both Obama and Gingrich repulsive.
Ron Paul, however, is far more electable and has the best chance of preventing Obama from another term. Paul resonates with blue collar middle class voters who are fighting to survive under the inexorable burden of taxes levied by the federal government, state government, local government, and school boards. Also, Paul has an intelligent and pragmatic approach to foreign policy, while the others have such extreme positions on foreign policy, none of the others are electable.
Wed, Feb 15, 2012 12:08pm
By the way, if you are interested in democracy (small "d") there is an opportunity to ensure that voters may see all the candidates' names on the ballot in Delaware's primary.
Please sign the petition to get Ron Paul on the ballot by contacting: email@example.com or call 302-220-9198
Mike from Delaware
Wed, Feb 15, 2012 3:08pm
Teatime: The bigger factor is not the GOP, but Independent votes in the General Election. Republicans will do one of two things. They'll either vote for whomever the GOP nominee is, or not vote at all. The Independents will vote either GOP or DEM, but will vote. So which Republican can get that Independent vote -- that's the big question. As much as I like Santorum, his very vocal pro-life, anti-birth control stands would very like light a fire under LIB/DEMS (especially women, even Barbara Bush and Laura Bush were Pro-Choice/Pro-Abortion) who might stay home and get many more out to vote than usual, which only helps Obama.
Ron Paul is a nice guy and I know you really like him, but he's got the Ross Perot thing going for him. He seems a bit on the kooky side, and that, with some of his foreign policy ideas, would make Obama an easy shoe-in to win, in my opinion. Gingrich is a total deal-breaker and would probably be the easiest Republican for Obama to beat. So given the choices in the GOP stable this time around, I still believe that Romney has the best chance of beating Obama.
It's a shame that Santorum has beat the drum so loudly about his Pro-Life and anti-birth-control beliefs, as that issue is either a deal-maker or deal-breaker for so many voters, especially women. Unlike JFK, who said his Catholic beliefs would not affect his running the nation, Santorum has said that his beliefs would affect his policies while President. The audio and film clips of Santorum saying that... would be a centerpiece of the DEM campaign against the former Senator from PA, and would mobilize the female pro-choice voters in a major way. Anytime I hear any women discuss Santorum, that is where they seem to focus. Rick's an honest guy, but he should have treaded a bit more lightly on that topic, better yet not made it a campaign issue this time around. That just may be his Achilles Heel.
Wed, Feb 15, 2012 3:55pm
Sorry, Tea, but I've read a bunch of Ron Paul's stands on many different topics. The man is a kook and only stands a chance with people who are voting for an "outsider", and who don't actually do their homework on where the candidates stand. President Ron Paul might just get me to move to Canada.
Agreed with MFD... Santorum may light up the GOP, but he's scary for independents and libs. The pro-life/anti-contraception issue is one big turn off for them... the other is his very, VERY anti-gay stand. We can preach "it's the economy, stupid" as much as we want, but a lot of people will still vote on human/social issues first, and those are big, big topics where Santorum will lose anyone not to the far-right.
I don't like Romney, but I still feel he has the best chance of beating Obama in the general. He may not be very genuine, but at least he's not hard-core right-wing. That's a plus in his column for independents.
Wed, Feb 15, 2012 11:13pm
@Shawn: Santorum is VERY anti-gay? He doesn't support gay marriage (both Newt & Romney say the same thing), so how is he more anti-gay than the others?
I do agree that if Santorum gets the nomination he will need to have a more moderate VP like Romney to pacify the independents (none of the Republicans will be able to win over liberal voters).
The contraceptive/abortion issue is much more than a social issue; it is another example of our rights being taken away. Religious freedom is one of the reasons people came to America in the first place. As a side note, I read today that Virginia voted to give rights to unborn persons.
I agree that Romney will probably win the primary in Delaware, but I really don't think he can overcome the RomneyCare/ObamaCare issue and defeat Obama.
Thu, Feb 16, 2012 1:44am
Unfortunately, my prediction at this point is that Obama and his propaganda team will succeed in fooling 'em again
come November. Unless gas goes to $20 a gallon, it's pretty much a done deal.
Mike from Delaware
Thu, Feb 16, 2012 8:19am
EarlGrey: Thanks for the link to the Reuters story.
The Virginia bill still has to pass the Virginia Senate and be signed by the Governor.
As expected, the Pro-Abortion forces are claiming this bill would also prohibit birth control and infertility treatments.
Bob Marshall, who introduced the legislation said that is not true.
That would be the important question. Many might agree with banning all abortions, but banning birth control and infertility treatment would probably be a deal-breaker for most folks.
A question, if the unborn fetus would have personhood rights, what happens when both mother and baby are in danger of death? The doctor has to decide which one to save; can't save both. So whose rights are more important at that moment? I'd vote for the mother; she and her husband can make another baby, but there might be a few kids at home praying for their mom to make it home to them. But this is a question that would need to be addressed before I'd want to vote to change that law.
Another question is, IF this bill passes in Virginia, what are the odds that the Pro-Abortion folks, Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, etc., would go to court to get this declared unconstitutional? My guess, there's pretty good chance. Then it would be up to the courts to rule. I guess first the Virginia Supreme Court, and then probably it would end up at the US Supreme Court. How would they rule?
So this is far from a done deal.
Thu, Feb 16, 2012 9:46am
"A question: If the unborn fetus would have personhood rights, what happens when both mother and baby are in danger of death? The doctor has to decide which one to save; can't save both. So whose rights are more important at that moment? I'd vote for the mother, she and her husband can make another baby, but there might be a few kids at home praying for their mom to make it home to them. But this is a question that would need to be addressed before I'd want to vote to change that law."
As a husband and a father I agree with you. I, along with most doctors, would choose to save my wife first...but an important thought in your statement is that the fetus/baby is a person too. When a pregnant woman is in a car accident (or any other accident) the doctors see two patients needing help and not just one.
But you are right, this deal is far from "done".
Mike from Delaware
Thu, Feb 16, 2012 1:22pm
EarlGrey: I agree the doctors should see it as two patients, but in those rare times where only one can be saved, is where that Virginia law, if enacted, could be a problem, because then the unborn baby still in the womb would have the same rights as the mother. There might be lawsuits from ProLife groups who'd say let the baby live and too bad for the mother (I've met folks like this).
Fri, Feb 17, 2012 2:19am
I'm not sure if the done deal you're talking about is the same one I am. When I said done deal I meant that I think Obama's re-election is a done deal, regardless of what happens with this birth control thing. Just like Bill Clinton, Obama will likely fool 'em again. Fool America once, shame on Obama. Fool America twice, shame on America!
Add your comment: Attention: In an attempt to promote a level of civility and personal
responsibility in blog discussions, we now require you to be a member of
the WDEL Members Only Group in order to post a comment. Your Members
Only Group username and password are required to process your post.
You can join the WDEL Members Only Group for free by clicking here.
If you are already a member but have forgotten your username or password, please
Please register your post with your WDEL Members Only Group username and password below.