Consult your nearest statistician for the odds of that happening.
Upon examining this lopsided electoral matchup, one could conclude that Romney is not the strongest candidate the Republicans could nominate to go up against Obama.
Sure, you could say that, but you would be wrong.
The truth is that Romney, at this time, is actually the best candidate the Republicans could have to spearhead the ticket. The reasoning is that since Romney is perceived as “more moderate,” he has a better chance of converting independent voters in those nine toss-up states with 115 electoral votes than any of his former GOP rivals. (Do you seriously think Gingrich, Santorum, Bachmann, Cain, or Perry would be doing any better?)
Romney’s problem with the electoral map is NOT Mitt Romney. But the attitude and composition of the voting electorate is trending away from what the Republicans, as a brand, have traditionally stood for — less government, traditional values, taking charge of your own destiny, strong defense, God, family, and apple pie.
Does anyone seriously have a plan to turn around current social and cultural trends? Think about the 10 reasons at the beginning of this piece and it becomes clear that the Democrat voting mold is cast.
This pains me to write, but let’s just say the statistical chances of Romney winning 100 out of those 115 electoral votes prove to be too much and President Obama is re-elected.
What happens to Republicans as they try again for the White House in 2016? Here is a preview.
Base conservatives who were against Romney and wanted a “true conservative” at the top of the ticket in 2012 will blame Romney for the loss and the cycle of finding a “Reagan conservative” leader will begin again just like it did after McCain’s loss to Obama in 2008.
Meanwhile, traditional Republican states like North Carolina, Virginia, and Arizona have become fierce battlegrounds, joining the usual battlegrounds of Ohio and Florida. Thus, the path to 270 for ANY present and future Republican presidential nominee becomes narrower and narrower while the Democrats have an increasing number of options.
Looking back, based on how much the demographic composition of the nation had changed, there are studies (by Democrat think tanks) that conclude John Kerry in 2004 and even Michael Dukakis in 1988 would have won the White House if they faced the same electorate then that President Obama is facing this November. The Democrats know that today’s demographics are their destiny.
I wish I had better news to report, but based on the 10 reasons cited above I conclude that President George W. Bush and President Millard Fillmore might just have something in common.
Fillmore in 1850 was the last Whig Party president, and Bush re-elected in 2004 might be the last Republican Party president.
For the sake of this nation’s future, I hope I am wrong. However, when I look at all the young Democrat voters in my own family, I shake my head.
The thought of any of them voting for a Republican president this time or anytime in the future is as unlikely as any one of them quitting Facebook.
It’s the culture, stupid.