Well, probably not. But I suspect that Gov. Romney, as the Republican presidential nominee next year in a race against the president, will create a whole slew of new purple states in the once midnight blue Northeast, and perhaps even pick off a state or two in the region that stretches from the Keystone State up to the ancestral Republican state of Maine. While most of these states have been voting heavily Democratic in presidential elections since 1990, it is possible that a Northeastern Republican nominee with a good-government vibe such as Gov. Romney will be able to once again put Rockefeller Country into play, especially against an unpopular president like Barack Obama.
I believe that the West Coast, and not the Northeast, will be Obama’s base region in next year’s elections. In 2010, the Rockies proved to be a sort of firewall for Republican hopes, as the massive wins by Republicans in the South and the Rust Belt began to dissipate as the red tide moved past the Mountain West, with the GOP wave seemingly non-existent in the West Coast states of California, Oregon, and Washington. Indeed, out of those three states, only one congressional district constituted a GOP pickup last year (WA-3), while Democrats easily won high profile gubernatorial and Senate races along the Left Coast. Reagan’s California, once the forerunner of the classical liberal rebellion that was the Reagan/Thatcher movement of the late ’70s and early ’80s in the Anglosphere, refused last year to vote for even the most non-ideological, managerial, nuts-and-bolts Republican in Meg Whitman, opting instead to embrace the past by re-electing once-and-future Gov. Jerry Brown. It’s becoming increasingly clear that the West Coast is transforming into its own country, highly insulated from the trends and influences of the rest of the nation.
But in the Northeast, shades of purple abound. The most recent poll out of Maine showing the president leading Gov. Romney by only a single percentage point demonstrates that the traditionally Republican parts of New England may be open to voting for Mitt when faced with the throwback to pre-Clinton leftism that is the current Democratic Administration. Romney regularly leads Obama in neighboring New Hampshire, and is behind by a mere two points in Connecticut. In Pennsylvania and New Jersey, Obama leads Romney by 2 points and 6 points, respectively. Up next: the red state of New York?
Note that I don’t really think that Romney will flip most of these Northeastern states, though New Hampshire seems all but certain and a Maine or a Pennsylvania wouldn’t be out of the question. What does seem clear though is that a Republican like Romney puts the Northeast into play against a Democrat like Obama. If nothing else, the president and his party will be forced to spend needed campaign funds throughout the Northeast, funds that would otherwise be dumped into border states like Virginia or Southwestern states like Colorado and Nevada. And if Romney does manage to pull a few Northeastern states into the GOP column, or at least makes things close in these states, many states that the conventional wisdom now writes off as safe Democratic states will make their way into the toss-up column for future elections. All in all, it’s difficult to see how a Romney/Obama race ends poorly for Republicans in the Northeast. At the very least, it will grow the number of states that seem within reach for Republicans during a presidential year. At most, it will flip a broad swath of the Northeast, as the sorts of voters who haven’t voted Republican for president since the pre-Clinton era, or perhaps even since the pre-Reagan era, consider the GOP as an alternative to the new normal of near-double-digit unemployment.
October 29th, 2011 at 3:50 pm
Great article. Bottom line: Only Mitt can beat Obama. And it’s going to be tough to do.
October 29th, 2011 at 3:56 pm
I would say Romney can win in Maine, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania. If things are really going in our favor, I could see him also flipping Connecticut and perhaps even New Jersey.
But in terms of picking up states, I think Romney’s main advantage to us will be in the west (Nevada, New Mexico), and around the great lakes (Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, even Wisconsin).
Sorry Kavon, but I think Minnesota is just perpetually blue.
October 29th, 2011 at 3:58 pm
by the way, how about a prediction thread for the DMR poll?
October 29th, 2011 at 4:03 pm
The key is that running against Romney will cause Obama and the DNC and PACs to focus thief assets on traditionally blue states like mentioned above plus the upper Midwest ( including Michigan) and rocky mountain states ( CO, NV, NM) in a way that our Southern candidates cannot. If obama runs against perry or Cain then he can pour his HUGE cOffers of $ into the traditional swing states and have a better chance of picking those up. It would be idiotic of the GOP to NOT run Romney this cycle.
October 29th, 2011 at 4:18 pm
I can see Romney winning traditionally blue states near that corridor like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and maybe Minnesota, but outside of New Hampshire, I doubt he flips a single New England state.
The battle will be Nevada, Colorado, and Ohio. That’s really where the election will be determined.
However, even if Romney doesn’t win the electoral votes of New England, Obama will not be able to ignore these states as most Democrats would be able to if the nominee were say a Rick perry. Obama will have to spend significant resources to make sure these usually safe blue states stay in his column.
October 29th, 2011 at 4:19 pm
Very interesting, Dave. Great visual on turning blue states purple. A wider cross-section of vulnerability will keep Obama on his tippy-toes…
…making it all the easier to knock him down.
October 29th, 2011 at 4:48 pm
Without playing in difficult areas like W. Virginia, New Hampshire, or Gore’s home Tennessee Bush wouldn’t have gotten over the hump in 2000, Florida or not when supposedly easier states like Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and New Mexico all disappointed.
Bush played everywhere he THOUGHT he could win like Oregon (which, believe it or not was VERY close), Pennsylvania, Michigan, Maine, even California for most of the race. Maybe he didn’t win these states, but by expanding the map he managed to, for lack of a better term, get lucky in a few key states that many on this blog would toss away in favor of fighting it out in a small concentration of states and use a thread the needle strategy (note the previous sentence was not specifically directed at Common Cents).
October 29th, 2011 at 4:54 pm
With Romney, winning New Hampshire is a given. Maine is very possible. Nevada is in the bag, especially with the economy. You can also expect Mormons to turn out at higher rates than normal as well, perhaps adding 1% to a potentially close race there. Arizona is a lock.
The only swing state I see Romney losing to Obama is Iowa. Iowans love Obama and Bush only won Iowa by 1% in 2004. McCain lost it by 9% and even Bush lost it to Gore in 2000.
But you don’t need Iowa when you have NV and NH locked up.
Pennsylvania is reliably blue, so a win in PA for Romney would likely correspond with a big win overall, rather than cause a narrow win.
October 29th, 2011 at 4:54 pm
7,
Thank you! I’m glad someone else remembers the pre-2000 “conventional wisdom.” I remember Republicans in 2000 crowing about California being in play. And Dick Morris was arguing that New Jersey would be at the midpoint of the electoral map when the dust settled from 2000. Everyone was assuming that Bush would create a sort of center-right Republican map, with socially moderate voters in places like Oregon and Pennsylvania along for the ride. They even interviewed the Bushes AS the results were coming in, and you could tell they were in denial about Pennsylvania. Funny thing about the conventional wisdom is that it is always a lagging indicator. It changes as the facts on the ground change. Some of the young’uns seem to think that politics began in November of 2000
October 29th, 2011 at 4:57 pm
If the Obama base is not overly motivated toturn out, then the possibility of Romney being able to pick off a northern east state or two are much more likely. NH looks like it has left Obama’s camp and CT and Maine could be next. Those three stste eqaul 15 Electoral Votes.
If Romney takes back Ind, Fla, VA, NC and Ohio and keeps all the states McCain won, he wins with 280.
Nev, NM, WI, MI, IA, Col and Pa total 72 EV’s where victory can be mined from.
Romney provides more options to and pathways to victory. Sadly, the remainder of the GOP candidates do not.
October 29th, 2011 at 5:00 pm
#10
To clarify from above:
If Romney takes back Ind, Fla, VA, NC and Ohio and keeps all the states McCain won, he wins with 280, if he flips NH, Maine and CT.
October 29th, 2011 at 5:00 pm
I didn’t think it was possible to write a positive piece about Romney with the word flip in it.
October 29th, 2011 at 5:07 pm
You Romney folks are going to be a deep funk when Obama beats Romney by 2-4% on the same sort of playbook Bush used to destroy Kerry in 2004. Not that I think any of the other losers running this year would do much better.
If a Romney pulls a Dukakis I could see him losing by as much as 6%.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/85/Michael_Dukakis_in_tank.jpg
We can only hope Romney hasn’t forgotten “Who let the dogs out… Woof Woof” and how ridiculously phony and smarmy he appeared.
I personally hope Romney loses by a narrow enough margin that we hold on to the House. Obama with the House and Senate would probably double the debt to 30 trillion in a second term.
October 29th, 2011 at 5:14 pm
13
If Obama gets re-elected, this country is doomed.
We’re not just concerned about keeping the debt down. We are also concerned with Obama’s INACTION when it comes to fixing the environment for job creation.
If Obama is a second-termer, all he’s going to do is sit on his ass and travel around the country like he’s been doing for 3 years now.
So basically, Obama needs to get defeated, or it won’t MATTER if we keep the House and win the Senate. Because if Obama wins, nothing will get done, and this country is done for.
October 29th, 2011 at 5:17 pm
13 Doug,
I’ve never disagreed with the Romney/Kerry analogy, only with the assertion that a Kerry-like candidate is doomed to fail. It seems that Kerry lost because Bush’s approval rating was between 48-51 percent. If Bush’s approval had been between 42-46 percent, as O’s is now, Kerry would have won, probably with 300 electoral votes or so.
October 29th, 2011 at 5:41 pm
!3 was the misguided Econ Grad not Doug
October 29th, 2011 at 5:42 pm
13:
Saying the Kerry strategy will work for Obama is like saying the McGovern strategy would work for McCain. Different times, different presidents, different candidates. Romney has been batting away the Kerry strategy with ease all election season, what makes it likely that Obama is going to be any more successful. And what would Obama achieve even if he is successful? He’ll make Romney look more moderate and appealing to independent voters than he really is.
Remember, Kerry was a hardcore liberal tacking to the middle. Romney is accused of being a moderate tacking to the right. That may hurt Romney in the primaries, but it’s not going to hurt him in the general election.
October 29th, 2011 at 5:57 pm
“Romney will be able to once again put Rockefeller Country into play, especially against an unpopular president like Barack Obama.’
Yes, the Rockefeller candidate will be able to put Rockefeller Country into play.
Very good point Dave.
But we can get 270 with a Movement Conservative and not need to settle with a victory that fails to give us less Liberalism and more Liberty.
October 29th, 2011 at 5:58 pm
18
Newt Gingrich is a movement Conservative? AHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
… gasp…
AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!
… gasp…………………..
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
October 29th, 2011 at 6:00 pm
“Romney is accused of being a moderate tacking to the right”
This is Romney tacking to the right?
HOLY SMOKE!!!
October 29th, 2011 at 6:02 pm
Massachusett Conservative,
In a word…..yes.
But I’m glad I have your attention.
The battle for the party is now engaged.
Movement Conservative vs. Rockefeller on a swivel.
October 29th, 2011 at 6:05 pm
Romney is rather firmly on the right in most of his positions, and able to express conservative ideology better than all the other candidates. That’s always a key to knowing whether a candidate is faking it, whether they can comfortably explain their position. He’s not tacking to the right, he’s already there.
His demeanor has been rather confrontational when it comes to the left/right rift in the country, but he almost always sides with the conservatives.
October 29th, 2011 at 6:07 pm
I don’t believe that any of the other candidates are even mildly electable. And, even if they were to pull off a miracle, or Obama falls further in the toilet, they all would be horrid one-term presidents and we’d just have President Obama again in 2016 (you didn’t think he’d retire quietly did you?).
October 29th, 2011 at 6:08 pm
Fact 1 – Oregon is a very liberal state, and they elected Republican Gordon Smith to the U.S. Senate in 1996 and he served two terms.
Fact 2 – The electoral prizes of New York, Pennsylvania, and Illinois have often had moderate Republican Senators and Governors.
Fact 3 – Mondale won only 1 state in 1984.
Fact 4 – Romney will get every state that would go to Perry, Cain, Paul, or Gingrich, and he, more than any other candidate, will take states on which the Democrats are counting.
We have to nominate Romney if we are going to save our country from leftists and socialists. Nominating anyone else is extremely risky.
October 29th, 2011 at 6:08 pm
22:
*Edit
His demeanor has been rather unconfrontational
October 29th, 2011 at 6:10 pm
Hey Smack,
Chris Christie made yet another announcement today that he is reconsidering a run for the nomination. It seems the Smackdaddy is never wrong.
Oh, did I mention that your man Christie has endorsed Romney?
October 29th, 2011 at 6:14 pm
Doug,
Your point is very important. The election will be all about turnout, of bases and independents. I can imagine Obama going on a rampage with Perry or Cain, and the traditional democrat constituencies base being energized against candidates he paints as extremists. And all that while they alienate the middle.
The next point is what a Romney candidacy does for down-ticket races for Congress in those blue and purple states. I think it leads to even larger majorities. And that is why in the end I see the majority of the elected establishment lining up behind him for the nomination. They are motivated to get reelected first and to govern as a majority second.
October 29th, 2011 at 6:16 pm
Every election we hear from one wing of the party that if their guy doesn’t get the nomination they are going to sit it out to teach the rest of us a lesson. And every year once the general election rolls around everyone goes out to vote.
The only people who will sit out next fall are the same ones who never vote the just complain.
October 29th, 2011 at 6:32 pm
13. What makes it likely is that Obama will have a huge budget and there are way too many people who are willing to believe lies without checking for themselves.
I’m actually a bit frightened.
October 29th, 2011 at 6:45 pm
29. I am not afraid. I am confident Romney will win the nomination and trounce Obama.
Obama’s 2012 campaign tactics will only serve to continue giving leftist policies a bad name, which will help President Romney’s administration put things into perspective for the American people as we embark on the road to once again becoming a great nation.
October 29th, 2011 at 6:50 pm
Yeah….and if Romney selects Sen. Collins from Maine we might just win 48 states!!!
HOLY SMOKE!!!
A Rockefeller Convention has broken out here at RACE42012!!
October 29th, 2011 at 7:05 pm
Go away Smack you troll.
Fool us once shame on you.
Fool us twice shame on us.
October 29th, 2011 at 7:13 pm
31. Hmmmmmmmmm . . . . Conservatives across the board were endorsing Rockefeller in 1964?
Did I mention that your man Christie has endorsed Romney?
October 29th, 2011 at 7:36 pm
31:
A. Romney is a long way away from Rockefeller. Hell, he’s a long way away from McCain.
B. The only person who even remotely resembles Goldwater is Ron Paul.
October 29th, 2011 at 7:55 pm
Smack, you are really hurting yourself now.
No one on this site is taking what you’re saying seriously.
It’s way too ridiculous.
Plus, you were a Romney supporter 4 days ago, and nothing significant happened to change your mind except George Will’s article.
George Will supported Mitch Daniels. That automatically makes Will’s opinion useless in my book.
The list of CONSERVATIVES endorsing Romney is huge and you cannot ignore it.
October 29th, 2011 at 8:16 pm
“In 2010, the Rockies proved to be a sort of firewall for Republican hopes, as the massive wins by Republicans in the South and the Rust Belt began to dissipate as the red tide moved past the Mountain West, with the GOP wave seemingly non-existent in the West Coast states of California, Oregon, and Washington.”
There is a very good reason for this…and the polls show it. War.
October 29th, 2011 at 8:41 pm
35:
Someone’s mind got changed by that George Will article? It was about freakin’ ethanol subsidies of all stupid things. It was about the thinnest reason I’ve ever seen for denouncing a candidate.
October 29th, 2011 at 10:13 pm
“What if a man gain the whole world and loose his soul”
Romney must show me soul and passion before I will vote for him. Ryan just spoke to the AEI, showing soul and passion. Romney has to do something like that. Don’t give me platitudes about electabiliy. Show me action.
I still want a brokered convention with Ryan, Huckabee, or Jindal as the nominee.
October 29th, 2011 at 11:08 pm
38:
Romney isn’t passion, he’s action. Give him the keys to the country and he’ll get right to work fixing it and he’ll do a better job of it than Ryan, Huckabee, or Jindal too. That’s the type of person that he is. He walks in, decides what the problems are, makes priorities, and starts whittling away at the problems.
Oh, and there’s pretty much no chance at a brokered convention. There’s a good chance the winner will end up with about 80% of the delegates, and even if that doesn’t happen, there will be at most two viable candidate along with the handful of delegate Ron Paul manages.
October 29th, 2011 at 11:37 pm
38
Let me make sure I understand this correctly. If a man speaks with “passion” (like Obama did in 08), it means he is qualified to be President of the United States, making all economic and foreign policy decisions.
Is that really your perspective?
October 30th, 2011 at 12:07 am
38. Did you watch his speech at the Citadel? I thought it was pretty passionate.
October 30th, 2011 at 12:19 am
39 With passion and soul I believe I may have a Reagan rather than a Nixon or GW (and I loved GW, when he was running. Unfortunately, I believe Obama’s passion played a great part in his election and will be an asset to him next year.
38. You are probably right on the convention. The primaries have ruined our parties. Just because something has not happened does not necessarily mean it can’t. I believe God has intervened in our history at times. Maybe he will again. Actually nine chances out of 10 the establishment would control and nominate Romney. But God might still act.
What I am afraid of is that his actions will be like those he took as governor of Mass on healthcare and the enviorment. If he is elected he will have a Republican Congress. In my heart I know he will want to cut less than the Congress. He will find away to not cut the heart out of Obamacare. He will want to show he can get along with the Democrats.
To both of you: Niether of you discuss soul, as you know he has no political soul. If you say competence is soul, I will scream. With out passion and soul he will not be able to lead. He will not be able to go over the heads of opposing Democrats and he will not have the trust of Republicans, if he has to compromise.
38 You obviously know nothing about Jindal. Actually, his only problem maybe his personalty.
October 30th, 2011 at 12:25 am
In 42 I got my typing mixed up again 38 should have been 39 and 39 should have been 40.
41 I did not watch the Citadel speech, I will try to find it.
October 30th, 2011 at 1:13 am
42. I firmly believe that Romney hates ObamaCare and will do all he can to get it repealed. There are many, many features in it that are not in MassCare.
What did Mitt do about the environment as gov that has you concerned?
I also really believe Mitt will be driven to find effective ways to cut inefficiencies in the fed and in the military.
I hope you’ll give him a chance to prove himself because no way he’ll be worse than Obama and none of the other candidates have shown they could handle it.
October 30th, 2011 at 1:15 am
Arkansas Yankee, get a clue. How much passion a President has in his voice has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with his ability to make Presidential decisions.
Passion certainly helps sway voters as it did with Obama, but that only proves it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the ability to make Presidential decisions.
October 30th, 2011 at 1:44 am
44. You make some sense. We will have to await to see if I am Agrippa (of New Testament fame)or not. Also we are going to have to cut more than inefficiencies. Does he have the fortitude to be a Daniels in Indiana, a Kasich in Ohio, or a Walker in Wisconsin. Doing the right things is going to cause a lose of popularity. But Daniels’ rebounded, Walker’s is rebounding. I think Kasich is being sabatoged by some other leaders in the Ohio Republican party. Even so, he should rebound, when his plans work.
45. As others have done you leave out soul in your discussion. You admit passion may play a part in electing a president and then imply that it is not important in selecting a nominee. It is not just passion in his voice, it what he says that reveals the passion. But how he says it by inflection is important. We need a Reagan. I know we cannot get a clone. The Dems are always looking for a FDR. To a degree they got him in Kennedy and Obama.
October 30th, 2011 at 2:08 am
46. Well my thought on that is this: Mitt can do a lot more in 8 years than he can in 4. And, he can do a lot more with a republican congress than with a democrat one.
If he gets elected and storms the white house guns a blazin’ he won’t get another 4 years and after 2 years, voters will put dems in the majority as a referendum.
So, I’M hoping he’s smart about his efforts. I’m hoping he finds ways of working with dems to get important stuff done. I’m hoping he can start with something that everyone can agree on and then get quick results so the voters will see he’s on the right track.
We have to remember that a president is not a dictator. Mitt has shown the ability to dig into details and mess and figure out how to turn things around — in both private and public sector. I’m looking forward to seeing what he can do with the nation.
October 30th, 2011 at 9:24 am
[...] Can Romney Win the Northeast? [...]
October 30th, 2011 at 3:56 pm
Please, help this Pro-Mitt cartoon GO VIRAL for Halloween!
http://mittfitts.com/2011/10/28/mittfitts-happy-halloween-a-treat-for-america/