ZZZ has a point. So do you. The idea is to hang on to what you won last time and add one or two big states. My point regarding Rudy, and to a lesser extent Romney, is that if they demonstrate convincingly that they can carry NY, Mass or another big blue state, then the republicans should win. Even if the republicans were to lose a couple of smaller red states, which is unlikely anyway, they would be far ahead. My fear however, is that they would lose those states, closely perhaps, but still lose them. If that is the case, then the republicans absolutely must hang on to every red state. I don't think a Rudy/Romney/Tommy Thompson ticket is the way to do that.
And all the republicans have to do is win every state Bush did. At this point, wouldn't you say Florida and Ohio are the keys? Perhaps I am discounting Romney too much, and he could carry Mass. If so, game over.
Newt's take on what the republicans should take away from the french election: A Royal Commitment to the Status Quo and a Candidate of Change As for the opposition in the French election, much like the American Democratic Party, it is trapped by its commitment to big labor, big bureaucracy, high taxes and social values people don't believe in. Every time French voters seriously looked at Ségolène Royal and the kind of politics she represents, she lost ground. She simply couldn't make the case that left-wing Socialist policies would work. The result was a surprising and powerful upset by Sarkozy -- a victory by a center-right reformer, a member of the unpopular ruling party, who came to personify change. And here's where American Republicans really need to pay attention: In France, voting for change meant voting for the party in office, but not the personality in office. And voting to keep the old order meant voting for the opposition, not for the incumbent party. If Republicans hope to win the presidency next year, they better find a candidate who is prepared to stand for very bold, very dramatic and very systematic change in Washington. Not only that, but they had better make the case that the left-wing Democrat likely to be nominated represents the failed status quo: the bureaucracies that are failing, the social policies that are failing, the high tax policies that are failing, and the weakness around the world that has failed so badly in protecting America. Only if we have that kind of campaign do we have a reasonable chance to expect the American people will vote for effective change for a better, safer and more prosperous future -- and that they will see that effective change as being Republican.
Go back and see exactly how many votes Kerry lost by in Ohio. Ohio is where I would focus most of my energy, and campaign money.
He lost by over a 100k in Ohio. In other words no less a margin than Bush's losses in PA and MI. And close Bush losses in MN and WI (20 electoral votes between them) could be reversed with the boomtown provided those states by the GOP ethanol program. Florida is key (no pun intended) but FL elected a new Republican Gov (who followed a Bush) over a good looking Congressional Dem by a lopsided margin. Also while 2000 was a cliffhanger down here, in 2004 Bush carried FL by 400,000 votes.
A dem has a better chance of winning all states won Kerry plus Ohio, than winning all states won by Kerry plus Florida. The assumption is a democratic candidate will winn every state Kerry did (not a given, but reasonable if the dem candidate is reasonable) and then Ohio. I would forget Florida, because of the type of people who live there...
If they think we stole the last two elections, what makes them think they'll get a fair shake next time? They won't. Karl Rove is seeing to it right now.
You know absolutely nothing about the type of people who live here...Almost everyone in South Florida is from NY....that bastion od democratic beliefs......If they are not from NY, they are from Ct, NJ, or Penn....and a huge amount is also from Ohio.....Now the other large population groups as well are from CUba and PR.....Don't Dems cater to the immigrant populations that come to America?
Ok, I understand that you guys are conservatives, and would vote republicans traditionally. But don't you think it is time for a change, at least temp change. Having republicans in the house did double our national debt, deficit, increased outsourcing, messy war...... and the worst in history administration with own private agenda... Just because you are conservatives, don't mean you shall always vote for these people. Then you are blind, and the first you disrespect is your own self, stamping your self as a follower. When I came to US I found the republican party aligns more with my values until they got in power and I got to see their real faces, I switched. Will switch on democrats if they mess up. Simply I can hire and fire any one who does not work for this country interest. These are politicians, simply they are after power, I can never get so emotional supporting one, but I may do so opposing one when he screw up. How can someone be so blind about Bush's screw up is beyond my imagination.