ChrisWeigant.com

Ridiculously Early Look At Electoral Math

[ Posted Monday, May 14th, 2012 – 16:40 PDT ]

In a few weeks' time, this column will begin its quadrennial series on analyzing the presidential Electoral College math. Since, as any fifth-grader will tell you, we don't have a national vote for president, tracking the race by means of national polling is almost completely irrelevant to the question of who will be in the White House after next January. The real race happens state-by-state, and we'll be engaging in close analysis of the state polling numbers soon.

For now, I'm just going to go with my gut. Paying little or no attention to actual polling (where it even exists -- it's still mighty early), instead I lay out today the states I'll be watching closely, and how I think the chips will fall in November based only on my gut feelings. If this sort of thing doesn't interest you, well, there's plenty of other stuff on the internet to look at, right?

Ahem. Moving right along, first we've got to add up how many votes both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama have already essentially locked up. Here are my lists of states I don't expect much polling from, since everyone knows how they'll vote (states are listed roughly west-to-east, for no particular reason):

Obama: Hawai'i, California, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Illinois, D.C., Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, Maine.

Romney: Alaska, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia, South Carolina, West Virginia.

Some might quibble about one or another of these states, but that's what my gut says, so that's what I'm going with. This gives Obama 196 all-but-guaranteed electoral votes, and Romney 156. Put another way, this leaves Obama with 74 votes to pick up to cross the finish line, whereas Romney will need 114.

There are also a few additional states which can be predicted with a high degree of confidence, even this far out. For Obama, this includes Nevada, New Mexico, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Romney picks up two such states, Montana and Arizona. Even more folks would probably quibble with these choices, and my gut may prove to be wrong -- the contests could indeed be close in almost any of these states. But we've got to start somewhere. This boosts the totals to 233 for Obama, and 170 for Romney. Obama needs only 37 electoral votes to win, in this scenario, and Romney needs an even 100.

This leaves ten states on the table, for a total of 135 electoral votes. Right off the bat, it's easy to see that Romney will almost have to run this table to win, whereas Obama has many various options for how he can cross the finish line even while losing important states. Five of these states my gut already feels fairly confident about (numbers in parentheses are electoral votes per state).

Colorado (9) -- Colorado is in the process of becoming a reliably Democratic state. They've been getting bluer and bluer for years, and I don't see this changing in 2012. My gut says Obama wins it by at least five points.

Iowa (6) -- Normally a pretty reliably Democratic state, Obama will likely have some problems with the evangelical vote here. Iowa will likely be very close, but the gut says it goes to Romney.

Missouri (10) -- One of the swingier of swing states, a close Senate race will boost turnout. Obama has a chance of winning here, but again I think it goes for Romney in a very close vote.

Indiana (11) -- Obama won here last time around, but only barely. I think this time Romney seals the deal and moves the state back to the red column.

New Hampshire (4) -- Obama picks up New Hampshire handily. This is the least important of the swing states (due to only having four Electoral College votes), but the media will likely pay a lot of attention to it (because it is close to New York, where they all live, and it is more fun to travel to than Indiana or Missouri).

If I'm not mistaken in any of these gut-shot guesses, this means an additional 13 votes for Obama, and an extra 27 votes for Romney, upping their totals to 246 for Obama and 197 for Romney.

This puts Obama within easy striking distance of the 270 he'll need to win. Of the remaining five states -- all with fairly hefty numbers of electors -- Obama will only need to win two to gain a second term. To put it another way, Obama can lose Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania if he manages to pick up Virginia and North Carolina. Let's take a look at these states one-by-one.

Florida (29) -- If Obama wins Florida, he won't even need a second state from this group. If all the other gut calls I've made pan out, Obama would have 275 electoral votes by winning Florida alone. Florida, as always, will be a very close vote, and may hinge on public perception of who will fight harder for Social Security and Medicare.

North Carolina (15) -- This may be the state pundits point to as the price of Obama coming out for gay marriage, if he loses here. African-American voter turnout could be key, and Obama's just given a lot of them a possible reason to stay home.

Virginia (13) -- Virginia has been moving steadily towards the blue, but it could easily flip back in this election cycle. Suburban turnout may be the biggest factor here.

Ohio (18) -- Another big Senate race is happening here, which means turnout may be up on both sides. Look for Obama to relentlessly campaign here on one subject: the auto bailout and how Romney would have let the auto industry die.

Pennsylvania (20) -- The Catholic vote may be the determinant here. Pennsylvania is usually reliably blue overall (there are deep blue and deep red parts of the state, but more people tend to live in the blue sections). This may not hold true in 2012, however.

OK, "final darts at the wall" time. I think Romney ekes out a win in Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio. But Obama will pick up Pennsylvania and Virginia. Final score: Obama 279, Romney 259.

You'll note that's pretty close. A flip of only 11 electoral votes would change the outcome. If any state (or group of states) with 11 votes or more goes for Romney instead of how I've called it here, then Mitt will be our next president. Of course, my gut was rather generous in awarding Mitt some of these tossups, and if Obama manages to hold on in a few states he previously won, then he could indeed win with a much more comfortable margin than 11 votes.

What does emerge from looking at the states is one factor which may override a lot of others -- Barack Obama won't be the underdog in this fight. Obama has many more achievable paths to victory than Romney currently does. Romney's got to win in a lot of states which are likely to be very close votes, with almost no margin of error. Obama can pick up states here and there and put together the required 270 votes in a number of different ways.

Of course, things change, and I do realize that it is ridiculously early to even be playing this game. But I thought it was at least worth tossing my chips down at the start, just as a benchmark for later analysis. Don't agree with my gut? Let me (and it) know in the comments!

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at Business Insider
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

42 Comments on “Ridiculously Early Look At Electoral Math”

  1. [1] 
    oldgulph wrote:

    Presidential elections don't have to be this way.

    The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in more than 3/4ths of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the primaries.

    When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.

    The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

    In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

    The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

    NationalPopularVote
    Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc

  2. [2] 
    insert90 wrote:

    To me, it looks like the states the election's going to come down to are Ohio and Virginia. All the other swing states seem like they have some lean to one side or the other. Also, I'd give Obama a better chance of winning Iowa than New Hampshire. Romney was practically living in New Hampshire for the four years before the primary.

  3. [3] 
    Sarasota Joe wrote:

    I mostly agree with your gut; but since you asked for quibbles here they are:

    While I agree that Maine will go for Obama, and Nebraska will go for Romney, Maine's northern second Congressional District is a possible pick up for Romney, and Nebraska's second Congressional District (Omaha) is a possible hold for Obama, who won it last time. Of course these won't change the electoral calculus much, unless it comes down to one or two electoral votes, but these districts certainly deserve their own space in any electoral College breakdown. My gut tells me ME2 goes to Obama, and Omaha could go any way, but neither is safe territory for either candidate.

    In your "high degree of confidence" states I am pretty much in agreement. Arizona however, while it will likely go for Romney, is no more likely to do so then say Colorado is to go for Obama. Arizona will probably have the closest margin of any of your "high confidence" states.

    My gut says that you've got Iowa and New Hampshire reversed, but that's really just intuition. Still, I think if they split, Obama stands a better chance in Iowa then New Hampshire.

    I also doubt that Obama's gay marriage pronouncement will make any difference in African-American turnout in North Carolina or anywhere else for that matter. I think North Carolina remains the perfect swing state that it was four years ago.

    And lastly, I think that if Pennsylvania doesn't go for Obama then he's probably also lost many of these other swing states (OH, FL, NC, VA, NH), and the election. My gut tells me PA may poll as a tight race, but comes home to blue in November.

    But these are quibbles. You've mostly done a great job of identifying the battleground.

  4. [4] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i can only speak with direct experience on the states i've lived in, so allow me to calibrate my views.

    i agree with you that florida will probably go to romney by a nose. our state has a weak spot for crazy cut-throat businessmen.

    in spite of voters being not particularly enthusiastic, pennsylvania is likely to tilt toward obama. its rust belt section is pretty split down the middle, but the philly area is a solid democratic stronghold and outnumbers its affluent and conservative suburbs.

    while new york is solidly democratic, new jersey is interesting in that it has the occasional independent streak and sometimes does flip the other way. yes, it's likely to tilt toward obama, but if i were you i would not put it in the foregone conclusion category.

    ~joshua

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course, things change, and I do realize that it is ridiculously early to even be playing this game. But I thought it was at least worth tossing my chips down at the start, just as a benchmark for later analysis. Don't agree with my gut? Let me (and it) know in the comments!

    I was wondering if you factored into your analysis the various incidents coming down the road??

    I am going to "program" you with some variables and, if you don't mind, could you give me a revised Electoral College analysis?

    Variable #1
    CrapCare is ruled unconstitutional. It is thrown out in it's entirety..

    Variable #2
    ObamaCare sails thru SCOTUS confirmation intact and truly becomes the law of the land.

    Variable #3
    Holder v AZ is decided entirely in favor of Arizona.

    Variable #4
    Holder v AZ is decided entirely in favor of the DOJ.

    Variable #5
    Holder v AZ is a split decision whereas some of the more pernicious laws are struck, but the main thrust of allowing LEOs to confirm immigration status is upheld.

    Variable #6
    Israel launches a strike on Iran that combines the best elements of Entebbe and Osirak. Iran's nuclear capability is decimated in a day and it will be decades before Iran can even think about becoming a nuclear power. There is little or no retaliatory fallout from Iran.

    Variable #7
    Israel launches a strike on Iran. Iran is ready and the attack is thwarted with massive loss of Israeli life and hardware.

    Variable #8
    Israel launches a strike on Iran that, while successful, drags the US into a long drawn out Middle East war.

    I had actually started with only 3 variables, but I wanted to get a nuanced picture on possible "WHAT IF" scenarios...

    What'cha think?? How does your Electoral College change under those variables??

    Michale.....

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    while new york is solidly democratic, new jersey is interesting in that it has the occasional independent streak and sometimes does flip the other way. yes, it's likely to tilt toward obama, but if i were you i would not put it in the foregone conclusion category.

    What part of Jersey did you live in??

    I went to High School in the Middletown/Red Bank area...

    Red Bank, NJ. Made famous by Weird Al Yankovic.. :D

    Michale....

  7. [7] 
    dsws wrote:

    I don't see a whole lot of Black evangelicals going for Romney. He's not even a "Christian" by most evangelical definitions of the word.

  8. [8] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    What part of Jersey did you live in??

    south orange/maplewood. there are quite a few famous people from there, a couple of whom i went to school with.

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    dsws,

    I don't see a whole lot of Black evangelicals going for Romney. He's not even a "Christian" by most evangelical definitions of the word.

    True.. With very few exceptions, expecting the black community to vote Romney is simply a bridge to far..

    However, the black community will likely be encouraged by Obama's embrace of his inner gay man to simply stay home on 6 Nov..

    A non-Obama vote from the black community is a de-facto vote FOR Romney.

    Joshua,

    south orange/maplewood. there are quite a few famous people from there, a couple of whom i went to school with.

    Ahhh.. It's been a while since I was there ('76-'78) but I do remember one of the best winters I had there (New Years Eve, 3 feet of snow) and the brutal summers.. I haven't felt humidity like New Jersey along the Navesink River in July ever again. Even down here in FL...

    Michale.....

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    So much for the GOP's alleged "War On Women" BS.. :D

    You can start panicking again: NYT/CBS poll Romney 46-43, up +1 over Obama with women
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/14/1091706/-You-can-start-panicking-again-NYT-CNN-poll-Romney-46-43-up-1-over-Obama-with-women

    Democrats need to understand something...

    Fear Mongering that is total bullshit may generate some points initially..

    But, in the long term, they lose those gains and then some..

    Plus their credibility is shot for the next time they want to fear monger..

    Michale.....

  11. [11] 
    Buckeye54 wrote:

    Michale,

    If you're going to preach about fear-mongering, I think it would be best to take the Republicans to task first. Fear-mongering was their go-to tool after 9/11, and I became rather ashamed of my fellow Americans by the way they were led by the nose.

    But I have noticed that it's a favorite tactic of Karl Rove and the Republicans to project upon their opponents what they are actually engaged in doing themselves.

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you're going to preach about fear-mongering, I think it would be best to take the Republicans to task first. Fear-mongering was their go-to tool after 9/11, and I became rather ashamed of my fellow Americans by the way they were led by the nose.

    First off, it's not "fear mongering" if it's a valid concern.

    Second, I am not taking Democrats to task for Fear Mongering.

    I am, as I am wont to do, exposing their hypocrisy for castigating the Rights actions as "Fear Mongering" and then turning around and indulging in blatant and unrestrained fear mongering themselves..

    But I have noticed that it's a favorite tactic of Karl Rove and the Republicans to project upon their opponents what they are actually engaged in doing themselves.

    Just as it is also the favorite tactic of Democrats...

    That's what makes being an NPA so wonderful and refreshing.

    You recognize the BS coming from BOTH political Partys... :D

    Michale.....

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Second, I am not taking Democrats to task for Fear Mongering.

    I am, as I am wont to do, exposing their hypocrisy for castigating the Rights actions as "Fear Mongering" and then turning around and indulging in blatant and unrestrained fear mongering themselves..

    After re-reading my initial post, I would have to say that you are correct..

    I was taking Democrats to task for total Bullshit Fear Mongering...

    My bust...

    Michale.....

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    There is also the big sex harassment scandal going on in the Democratic Party of North Carolina.. That's going to have an impact as well...

    Michale.....

  15. [15] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    insert90 -

    First off, welcome to the site, and my apologies for the delay. Your first comment was held for moderation, but you should now be able to post instantly, as long as you don't post two or more links in a single comment. [Those are held for moderation to cut down on comment spam.]

    I think FL will be just as close, but tend to agree about the importance of OH and VA.

    -CW

  16. [16] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Sarasota Joe -

    Welcome to the site! See my comment, above, to insert90, where I apologize for the delay in approving your first comment.

    I wondered if anyone was going to throw that one EV from Nebraska into the mix. That's a good point, too, about ME (the only other state, to my knowledge, that divvies up their EVs).

    AZ is going to be fascinating to watch, now that they don't have a "favorite son" on the ballot, that's for sure. You might be right on NH and IA.

    So you still think NC will go for Obama?

    As for PA, there's still a very valid reason to call it the "Keystone State" -- you are right about that.

    -CW

  17. [17] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [4] -

    I was wondering if you factored into your analysis the various incidents coming down the road??

    Nah, not really. This was just a "far out gut feeling" type of column. We'll get to much more focused analysis next month.

    I like your list of variables, though, it seems to even-handedly cover a lot of bases. I would add to the list Greece melting down and leaving the Eurozone, and possible fallout in the US economy.

    -CW

  18. [18] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Buckeye54 [10] -

    Excellent point. It's actually the card they play the best. Look at 2004: war hero runs against draft dodger. Who got attacked for his military service? Kerry. A new verb was born: "swiftboating."

    What is Romney weakest on? That'll be his main point of attack on Obama, guaranteed.

    -CW

  19. [19] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [13] -

    You talking about the Edwards trial, or some other sex scandal? Do tell!

    -CW

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW

    I would add to the list Greece melting down and leaving the Eurozone, and possible fallout in the US economy.

    Oooooo, nice catch..

    Yea, Greece is financially imploding a LOT faster than I would have predicted..

    Speaking of financial imploding, what's your take on California and Brown's ultimatum, "TAX OR CUT"??

    Portend of (national) things to come???

    You talking about the Edwards trial, or some other sex scandal? Do tell!

    Edwards is sooo 2009... :D

    http://www.wral.com/news/state/nccapitol/story/11101581/

    To sum up.. A semi-bigwig in the NC Democratic Party was nailed for sexual harassment. He resigned. THE bigwig in the NC Dem Party was being pressured to resign because he was involved by cover-up in the original harassment or something like that.. It's hard to keep track. The only thing harder than keeping track of DEM sex scandals is keeping track of GOP sex scandals.. :D

    Said NC DEM bigwig promised to resign, then reneged on the promise..

    Long story short (too late.. :D) a lot of uppity up NC Dems have egg on their face and Obama is coming to town..

    Add all of THAT turmoil to the NC's enactment of a gay marriage ban and it's no wonder Congressional Democrats are looking at themselves and painfully asking, "Charlotte NC??? REALLY!!???"

    It's Christmas and Birthday rolled into one for those who hold Political Partys in complete and utter disdain... :D

    Michale.....

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Election 2012: North Carolina President
    North Carolina: Romney 51%, Obama 43%

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/north_carolina/election_2012_north_carolina_president

    They were at a virtual tie a month ago..

    Ya'all worried???

    Michale.....

  22. [22] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    Nah, Brown's been playing this game for a while. It's a cycle -- threaten cuts so that his tax proposals pass. It's not really anything new, although the national media seem to think so.

    Oh, yeah, THAT sex scandal -- I offhandedly gave out some MDDOTW awards to these folks a while back... looks like at least one of them needs another one....

    NC may be a bridge too far for Obama this time around. VA seems more do-able for him, though. But we'll see...

    -CW

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nah, Brown's been playing this game for a while. It's a cycle -- threaten cuts so that his tax proposals pass. It's not really anything new, although the national media seem to think so.

    Yea, I remember when Jerry Brown was Mayor of San Diego..

    I don't remember much about him, other than he WAS mayor.. And seemed to be on friendly terms with my dad.. :D

    NC may be a bridge too far for Obama this time around. VA seems more do-able for him, though. But we'll see...

    While it's true that hindsight is always 20/20, Team Obama must be wondering, vis a vis North Carolina, if someone in the administration is cursed....

    "Did Grandma ever piss off a gypsy??"
    -Dean Winchester, SUPERNATURAL, My Heart Will Go On

    :D

    Michale.....

  24. [24] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Here's an interesting turn of events: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/05/16/warning-signs-in-wisconsin-for-obama/ Not only does the Marquette poll show Walker leading Bennett, but O's lead has evaporated (at least for now).

  25. [25] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    He was mayor of SD? I didn't know that. He was mayor of Oakland, but that was just a few years ago.

    Was that around the time his dad was governor?

    -CW

  26. [26] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Chris1962 -

    Not enough attention is being paid to WI, because I think it'll be portrayed as a bellweather state, no matter which side wins.

    -CW

  27. [27] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    oldgulph -

    First, welcome to the site!

    Sorry for the long delay in posting your comment, there was a technical problem beyond my control.

    From now on, you should be able to post comments and have them appear instantly, as long as you don't post more than one link per comment.

    I've written about the NPV movement here before, and am interested to see its progress. Have any new states been added to the total in the past year or so? I haven't been paying close attention, I admit.

    -CW

  28. [28] 
    dsws wrote:

    I have a strong hunch that NPV polling is even more sensitive to how the question is phrased than most poll questions. That's saying a lot: during the debate on Obamacare, respondents were overwhelmingly opposed to the public option, but equally decisive in favor of giving individuals the choice of a public option. If you ask "should our state's votes count along with everyone else's, or should we keep letting Ohio and Florida pick the president without consulting the rest of the country", or some such, you get the numbers cited. If you ask "should our state's electoral vote be decided by California and Texas, or should we get to choose our own electors", I suspect you would get landslides about as big in the other direction. I doubt anyone has done polls skewed against NPV, though, because it's still at the point where there's no such thing as bad publicity.

    I'm in favor, but my state already has it.

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    He was mayor of SD? I didn't know that. He was mayor of Oakland, but that was just a few years ago.

    I don't know WHAT I was thinking.. For some reason, I conflated Jerry Brown with Pete Wilson..

    There IS a tenuous connection between the two. Brown lost to Wilson for a Senate seat in '82.. But I can't claim that.. I dunno what happened..

    Brain fart, I guess...

    Lotsa JEEPs posting in this thread. :D Hope it's a sign of things to come. :D

    Michale....

  30. [30] 
    dsws wrote:

    JEEPs?

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Old military parlance.

    Just
    Entered
    Educational
    Processing

    These days, they're called 'noobs' or 'rooks'.

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    And now, just for a change of pace, here is a DEM plan that I can fully and 1000% get behind...

    Senators to Unveil the ‘Ex-Patriot Act’ to Respond to Facebook’s Saverin’s Tax ‘Scheme’
    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/senators-to-unveil-the-ex-patriot-act-to-respond-to-facebooks-saverins-tax-scheme/

    I am not a big fan of TAX TAX TAX, but am willing to make an exception in this case..

    Republicans would be totally stoopid NOT to get behind this...

    Michale.....

  33. [33] 
    akadjian wrote:

    So I think I just may have found a potential Obama card to play.

    I suspect that Mitt Romney is going to nominate a female VeeP to try to woo the part of the electorate he most struggles with.

    What if ... Obama nominated Hillary as VeeP instead of Biden. It would set her up for a run in 2016. And it would counter the Romney "making history w/ a female VeeP".

    If it happens, just remember you heard it here first folks ... :)

    -David

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    I predicted that Romney will take on Condie Rice (the G'oauld http://www.windypundit.com/archives/2005/images/20051026-RiceAsGould.jpg :D) as his Veep..

    If he does, Obama might as well concede the election now.. :D

    Michale....

  35. [35] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    David -

    I've heard the governor of NM mentioned. She's female (obviously) and also Latino. Two birds with one stone for Romney.

    But Romney's going to have to be very careful not to pick someone who will constantly upstage him (a la Sarah Palin). This is why I don't think Chris Christie even has a shot, personally.

    As for Hillary VP... I dunno, I've heard this proposed, but I kind of doubt it'll happen. I think the ticket will be Obama/Biden once again, personally.

    But then I could be wrong.

    :-)

    -CW

  36. [36] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    They already have Obama/Biden stuff at the campaign shop, so I'd say Obama/Biden is a done deal.

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    While I do think Obama throwing Biden under the bus is unlikely in the extreme...

    Let me say that, given Obama's history of discarding political liabilities it would not surprise me if Obama introduced Biden to the undercarriage...

    But, on the other hand, it must be getting REALLY crowded under there...

    "We're gonna need a bigger boat."
    -Roy Scheider, JAWS

    Michale.....

  38. [38] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Chris: As for Hillary VP... I dunno, I've heard this proposed, but I kind of doubt it'll happen.

    Wouldn't that look a little desperate on O's part? I don't know that he wants, or can afford, to come across that way.

  39. [39] 
    Chris1962 wrote:
  40. [40] 
    akadjian wrote:

    But Romney's going to have to be very careful not to pick someone who will constantly upstage him (a la Sarah Palin). This is why I don't think Chris Christie even has a shot, personally.

    Idunno, CW. That's gonna be a tough one. Upstaging Romney seems about as hard as showing up. He has the stage presence of toast ... without butter.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/opinion/mitt-likes-music-including-this.html

    Heheh ...
    -David

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Idunno, CW. That's gonna be a tough one. Upstaging Romney seems about as hard as showing up. He has the stage presence of toast ... without butter.

    "Wait, I can be dull, want me to be dull? What a nice shade of gray. How about some white bread with mayonnaise. I want to watch golf on television."
    -Urgo, STARGATE SG1

    :D

    Michale.....

  42. [42] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Wait, I can be dull, want me to be dull? What a nice shade of gray. How about some white bread with mayonnaise. I want to watch golf on television.

    ROTFL ... I would rather watch a cattle drive than golf on TV :)

Comments for this article are closed.
[Powered by WordPress]