• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

For real though: What is Romney's Path to Victory?

Good catch. Could it have to do with a more complex global economy?

I was hoping the person that posted the charts might have an answer.

But he has plenty of time to insult an entire wing of economic thought, even though some which favor it have surely forgotten more about economics than he ever knew.
 
Why are the modern recoveries taking so much longer? The last four recoveries have taken longer than previous ones even though many of the previous dips were steeper...they recovered faster.

I don't really understand those other two charts -- seems like they should be telling the same story but in many of the cases they aren't. But what I really found interesting was the first thing I asked about.

Nobody knows. The period from 1982-2007 is kinda unique, goes by the name the Great Moderation, and everything - inflation, unemployment, real GDP growth - got less volatile in the US (and much of the developed world, though to differing extents). Shallower and lengthier recessions and recoveries may have been a trade-off, but it's not as though policy-makers across the West decided to get together and have a Great Moderation intentionally, with full understanding of every variable involved.

I'm not counting 1981 in this analysis because Volcker got scared after putting the foot back on the gas pedal too early in 1980.
 
Getting back to the original thread topic, Romney achieved his 1st goal - get the better of the 1st debate. We'll see if that gets this weekend's polls moving in his direction. If it's seen that he "won" all 3 debates, even without some big international or economic event, I'm wondering if that would be enough to put him over the top. I still don't see him doing well in the upper midwest, but the south (FL, NC & VA) plus NV, CO & IA are enough to get him to 269. And he's within the margin of error in all of those states. It may be a limited strategy, but I think it's better than relying on OH & WI.

Tell you who else will be nervous going into these next 3 debates - Senate candidates in 10-12 states.
 
Getting back to the original thread topic, Romney achieved his 1st goal - get the better of the 1st debate. We'll see if that gets this weekend's polls moving in his direction. If it's seen that he "won" all 3 debates, even without some big international or economic event, I'm wondering if that would be enough to put him over the top. I still don't see him doing well in the upper midwest, but the south (FL, NC & VA) plus NV, CO & IA are enough to get him to 269. And he's within the margin of error in all of those states. It may be a limited strategy, but I think it's better than relying on OH & WI.

Tell you who else will be nervous going into these next 3 debates - Senate candidates in 10-12 states.

I think this is exactly right. Romney still doesn't have a great path to the presidency, but Obama could have shut the door last night and he didn't. Instead Romney stuck his foot in the door and wedged it open a little bit. He still isn't in the fight, but he is closer. A great performance by Ryan over Biden followed up with another strong debate from Romney and they could really start to gain some momentum on a national scale. People want to identify with a winner, so Romney HAS to make people believe he can win this thing before these swing states have a chance of turning around. Once Romney's national perception starts to become a bit rosier, his message will resonate better in the states he has to hit hard.
 
The lack of a ground game in OH, IA and NV make it very difficult for Romney.

As we often say, the prevent defense usually succeeds in preventing you from winning. Obama played an entire night of prevent.
 
If he would like to win, Mitt should have and announce more ideas that are as good as the deduction cap.

It's brilliant. I'm not sure a $17k cap would succeed in making his tax "reform" revenue neutral, or why revenue neutrality is important when we're already collecting more tax than we should right now, but not as much as we should in the long term, but caps are a great idea. If you can't take on all the lobbies that will pop up to protect their little carve-outs, just do this. It's like when Indiana Jones shot the swordsman.
 
OH is a must-win for Romney, as it is for most Presidential winners. Then he has to sweep VA, FL, IA, NH, and MO, and pick up CO and at least one of NV/NM. Its a tough mathematical map for sure.

Point being, there's plenty of time for Romney to move ahead in a few of these states, but is there enough time for him to move ahead in all of them? Would a "sweep" of the remaining debates be enough to put him over the top?
 
I saw one scenario where Ohio would not have to be in play (may have already been mentioned here):

Solid Romney (76):
Alabama (9)
Alaska (3)
Arkansas (6)
Idaho (4)
Kansas (6)
Kentucky (8)
Louisiana (8)
Mississippi (6)
Nebraska (5)
Oklahoma (7)
Utah (6)
West Virginia (5)
Wyoming (3)

Likely Romney (74):
Georgia (16)
Montana (3)
North Dakota (3)
South Dakota (3)
Tennessee (11)
Texas (38)

Leans Romney (31):
Arizona (11)
Indiana (11)
South Carolina (9)

That leave Romney with 181 EVs to start with that he should feel pretty comfortable about, meaning he needs 88 more EV's to get it to the House, where he would obviously win.

A sweep of these states would get him what he needs:

State (EV) - Current polling average

Florida (29) - Obama +2.0
North Carolina (15) - Romney +0.8
Virginia (13) - Obama +3.5
Missouri (10) - Romney +5.2
Colorado (9) - Obama +3.1
Iowa (6) - Obama +3.5
Nevada (6) - Obama +5.2

That would get him to 269 without Ohio. There is obviously a lot of ground to be made, but Nevada has a TON of Mormons, and I sincerely would not discount that fact. Organization there should not be a problem. Iowa is a little more difficult simply because Democrats have been a lot kinder to farming than Republicans in the past and there is some deep seated loyalty there. The fact that last night's debate was in Denver, Colorado HAS to give Romney a bump in the state, so that number could easily be closer to a pickem in a week. Missouri is looking good. Not sure about Virginia, that is going to be a really tough one, maybe the toughest in my opinion. North Carolina is up for grabs and Florida is always up for grabs.

If Ohio ever comes back into the picture (Obama +5.5 right now but I don't see that one with any inherent advantages like a Nevada) then this race truly does become tight. Right now Obama still holds a comfortable lead, but there is a path to the presidency without Ohio it seems. It is a difficult path, but stranger hanging chads, I mean things, have happened.

Source for info (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html).
 
Yeah, that's the scenario I've been talking about. It's possible and I believe is his best shot. Still think his Let Detroit Die position is going to make OH, MI & WI harder for him than they otherwise would have been.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, that's the scenario I've been talking about. It's possible and I believe is his best shot. Still think his Let Detroit Die position is going to make OH, MI & WI harder for him than they otherwise would have been.

Epic Librul Media work by the NYT to give Romney's op-ed that headline.

The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.

It's more or less what actually transpired.
 
Win all 3 debates. Profit.
 
Yeah, that's the scenario I've been talking about. It's possible and I believe is his best shot. Still think his Let Detroit Die position is going to make OH, MI & WI harder for him than they otherwise would have been.

MI is not in play. WI hasn't voted for a Republican since Reagan, so I have a hard time believing its in play as well.

I agree there are scenarios that Romney could potentially win without Ohio, but its much, much harder. Similarly, there's a scenario where Obama wins without OH, FL, MO, VA, or NC, but I doubt he'd want to go that route.
 
If Romney somehow takes Ohio then it is a sign that he has completely turned this race around, and I would be surprised if he didn't win. There is really only one scenario outside of taking Ohio where Romney could win, and that is the above scenario. Outside of that it is sweep Ohio and Florida. Still a grim outlook, but you're saying there's a chance!
 
Let's see a debate versus wanting GM to go BK in a state where 1 in 8 jobs is tied to the automotive industry. Which do you think will have more weight?
 
Let's see a debate versus wanting GM to go BK in a state where 1 in 8 jobs is tied to the automotive industry. Which do you think will have more weight?

Romney's op-ed argued for the managed bankruptcy that eventually happened, 9 months before it did. Seems prescient to me, but he has spent a long time trying to be further right of where he was in 2008.
 
Romney's op-ed argued for the managed bankruptcy that eventually happened, 9 months before it did. Seems prescient to me, but he has spent a long time trying to be further right of where he was in 2008.

"Romney, “If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed."
 
"Romney, “If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed."

Read the whole thing, man. I posted the link just a couple posts up. Romney got (hilariously) fucked by the editor who put that headline on the op-ed. The bailouts didn't work; GM and Chrysler eventually went into managed bankruptcy just like Romney called for. He's now criticizing that too, but that's a separate (base-driven?) issue.
 
Last edited:
The critical part of this is without the government bailout GM and Chrysler would be dead. There was no private money. Even Bain had said no to participating in a managed bankruptcy.
 
Shallower and lengthier recessions and recoveries may have been a trade-off,

I think this is the answer...put another way, the "soft landing" philosophy...the idea that the economy can't crash anymore. So they prolong the pain with economic interventionism when they could let the downturn happen and then let the recovery happen naturally.

This and minimum wage increases that result in more unemployed or underemployed people.
 
OH is a must-win for Romney, as it is for most Presidential winners.

Every Republican ever.

But the idea that the GOP won't have a ground game in Ohio is silly. In 2000 and 2004, when the GOP had to have Ohio to win a close election, they got it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top