The American Spectator : Election Year Math

Text Size

Election Year Math

By William Tucker on 3.15.12 @ 6:09AM

It’ll all come down to three states that went for Obama last time.

If you want to know what’s going to happen in the presidential race next November, just look at the above map. It shows the results of the 2004 election, won by George W. Bush with 286 electoral votes over John Kerry’s 251. Although it’s hard to remember now, 2004 was a breathlessly close election, particularly for an incumbent. If Ohio had gone the other way, Kerry would have won. That’s why two years later Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. was still in court trying to prove that Kerry had actually won Ohio and should be the President.

Now as Gerald Seib pointed out in Monday’s Wall Street Journal, all those blue states that went for Kerry in 2004 are going to go for Obama again this year. The only possible exception is New Hampshire — now the wealthiest state in the country, believe it or not — but it has only four electoral votes. The Democratic states have lost population since 2004, so if the country split the same way today Republicans would win 291 to 246. But this also means the Democrats only need one big state — 23 electoral votes — to reach the magic number of 269.

Seib says the Democrats are targeting Florida, but I don’t find that too likely. Obama’s strength is with the young and if the Republican candidate, whoever he may be, picks Senator Marco Rubio as his Vice President, that could wrap it up. But any combination of two or three smaller states — all of which went for Obama in 2008 — could achieve the same end. North Carolina and Virginia would do it in tandem. North Carolina and Colorado would also produce the magic 270. New Mexico, Nevada, Iowa, and Indiana all went for Obama in 2008 but if Republicans can’t win in these states they probably don’t have much of a chance anyway. So the final battleground is likely to be North Carolina, Virginia, and Colorado. Democrats figured this out long ago. That’s why they’re holding their convention in Charlotte.

Now, what do these three states have in common? Very simply, they are the nation’s new “suburbs,” the emerging middle ground between urban centers of the East and West Coasts and Upper Midwest, all voting Democratic, and the great rural in-between that is now wedded to the Republicans. These are Joel Garreau’s “Edge Cities” or David Brooks’ “Latte Towns” — take your pick — inhabited by Richard Florida’s “Creative Class.” Their voters are college-educated, employed well-paying, high-status jobs, but far enough away from the media centers so that they haven’t yet bought into the liberal dogma that the only way for things to be “fair” in America is to vote for Democrats.

North Carolina is the prime example. In 1959, the state ranked 47th in median income when it opened the doors to Research Triangle Park, the brainchild of Roman Guest, a textile salesman who had become impressed with how much technology was driving the textile business. Guest had noted that the state’s three major universities — Duke, North Carolina and North Carolina State — formed a triangle and were in close enough proximity so that they might be willing to collaborate at a central facility. “The concept was to separate the thinking from the hammering,” Guest wrote later. Research would concentrate on “textiles, agriculture, forestry, and tobacco.”

Today Research Triangle hosts research centers for IBM, Dupont, Data General, Becton Dickinson, Glaxo, Ericsson, Battelle, Panasonic, Martin Marietta, Motorola, Cisco, Biogen, the Chemical Industry Institute of Technology, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Underwriters’ Laboratory, the National Institute of Statistical Sciences, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association, plus the National Humanities Center, which moved there from Boston in 1979. The more than 45,000 highly educated employees make an average salary of $75,000.

These newly successful people have become the pivotal bloc that swings the state between Republicans and Democrats. They are not committed to either party. They are not terribly involved with social issues. Their main worry is the economy. If Republicans make birth control and separation of church and state the major issue, they will go Democratic. If the Democrats mess up the economy and produce $4.50 gas and 8.3 percent unemployment, they will swing Republican. That will probably decide the 2012 election.

There are a handful of other states in the same position. Colorado is now the 9th richest state, with a highly educated workforce centered around Boulder. The state went for Bush in 2004 and Obama in 2008, picking a winner each time. Virginia is in even more pivotal — a conservative Southern state that is being drawn into the center of gravity in Washington, D.C. In case you haven’t noticed, Washington is the only city in the country that has prospered under Obamaism. In the latest Gallup Poll of economic confidence, every single state had a negative outlook — from North Dakota’s -13 to West Virginia’s -44 — except the District of Columbia, where the confidence rating is +11. I just finished a stint as a speechwriter for Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and on my last day we had another Tennessee Tuesday, where the folks from back home are invited to meet their Senators on the top floor of the Hart Office Building. As I was chatting with a woman from Nashville, she suddenly exclaimed, “Why are there so many construction cranes around Washington? Are they still repairing all that damage from the earthquake?” A quick survey of the skyline confirmed there were construction cranes almost everywhere. It looked like a scene from Singapore. “Ma’am,” I said, “that isn’t earthquake damage. It’s your federal government, growing before your very eyes.” Virginia is now the 6th richest state and will have to decide where its true loyalties lie. Workers in Internet businesses that have grown up around Washington will probably have the deciding vote.

So the question for November will be this: “Who can reach out to these educated, upscale people who are going to be the deciding votes in the few state that are going to decide the election?”

The answer for Republicans is very clear. Mitt Romney’s main appeal is to these upscale voters. In every primary, he has run best in urban and suburban areas. He appeals to people with a college education, he appeals to women, he appeals to the more affluent. These voters are not scared by his Mormonism but they are put off by social issues and are worried about the economy. Romney scores well on all counts.

Rick Santorum is the antithesis. His entire appeal is to voters from rural areas who are already going to vote Republican anyway. He appeals to people with less education who are doing far worse than everyone else and are extremely resentful of those in other parts of the country — even though no one outside Washington is doing much better. They are passionate about abortion and social issues and want to restore religion to the center of American life. Santorum would win by a landslide in Alabama, Mississippi, Wyoming, and a few other rural outposts but would get slaughtered everywhere else. And don’t be fooled by that “I won in Pennsylvania” rhetoric. The last time Senator Santorum ran for re-election in 2006— after he had picked up the banner of social conservatism and tried to make himself a national figure — he lost by 700,000 votes, the worst defeat of an incumbent Senator in Pennsylvania history. He wouldn’t do any better in a Presidential election.

The choice for Republicans is between making a statement and winning an election. Choosing Santorum or Gingrich will give the Republicans their George McGovern moment, when they can sacrifice electability for principle. And by the way, we can thank Newt for splitting the arch-conservative vote and making it less likely either of these unelectable candidates will win. With candidates driven solely by personal ambition, ego always trumps outcome.

By choosing Romney — who seems “not conservative enough” only when contrasted with these two — Republicans will be getting more than just an appealing candidate. They will get an even chance or better of winning the election and taking back control of the Presidency. Compared with four more years of Obamaism, that seems like a pretty attractive choice.

About the Author

William Tucker is news editor for RealClearEnergy.org.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (242) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.15.12 @ 6:26AM

You should be careful. Such sound reasoning is perceived as "shilling" by some of the nuts who post at AMSPEC.

Redatheart| 3.15.12 @ 10:26AM

Mr. Tucker's "sound reasoning" as it relates to Colorado is anything but. First, the Feb 7 precinct caucuses in Colorado did not favor Mr. Romney, in spite of him carrying the "educated" voters in Denver's 'burbs; plus, any conversation about Boulder and a Republican winning the presidency is foolhardy, at best.

Another area omitted or perhaps disregarded is the growing Latino vote in Colorado; Mr. Romney polls near 14% which is an unhealthy position to be in if he hopes to carry this, or any other western state. His new-found immigration policy of 'self-deportation' which entails making life so miserable for illegals that they leave of their own accord is not received well in the large Latino/Hispanic communities in Colorado. A policy with more definitive approaches to solving the problem are expected; self-deport is not much better than the lax and unenforced policies currently coming out of Washington, D.C. Americans of all background and ethnicities want action and results; making life miserable in hopes people will leave is not flying well in fly-over states.

In summary, it will take more than the educated Republicans to put Mr. Romney over the top in Colorado. He must find a way to embrace the Christian conservatives that keep his approval numbers below 30% and develop a more enlightened and workable policy regarding illegal immigration.

(Note to Mr. Tucker: As a friendly and well-intended aside, to be taken seriously amongst the majority of voters in Colorado, ditch the scarf in future photos. Outside of CU in Boulder and maybe a few 'nuanced' souls in Denver, dudes in scarves are kinda suspicous characters in the Centennial State.)

Slacker| 3.15.12 @ 12:29PM

Funny Tucker doesn’t mention that ultra conservative Colorado Springs has twice the population of Boulder.

Agree the scarf is some strange fusion of old fart bohemian hipster and metrosexual Bedouin goat herder. Tucker’s so very upscale.

Now shut up and support Romney like any fashion conscious upscale voter should.

Bobloblaw| 3.15.12 @ 6:58PM

Want to know why Colorado has switched from deep red voting for Dole in 1996 to voting for Obama in 2008? It isnt Bouler. It is Arapahoe County and other in the Denver suburbs that have flipped. In 1980, Reagan carried Arapahoe with 70% of the vote. In 2008, Obama carried it 55-45.

AVCurmudgeon| 3.15.12 @ 12:53PM

Hey, at least he's not wearing a beret and a cape!

PCC| 3.16.12 @ 11:10AM

I don't agree with Mr. Tucker's analysis or conclusions, but I do agree that electoral math is the only thing that counts.

There are more states in play than he gives credit for, in my opinion, and a strong GOP nominee, either Romney or Santorum or, in a brokered convention, Palin or Daniels or Christie, have a better than even chance of beating President Obama.

No matter how you slice it, a presidential re-election campaign is a referendum on the incumbent. On that basis, any number of possible GOP nominees could win in November.

Dai Alanye | 3.15.12 @ 11:02AM

Wonderful explanation by Tucker. Now we know why Reagan lost.

The fact is, that as important as policies are, the average voter is driven more by emotion. If he or she can bond with a candidate, the vote is almost assured.

Yes, policies count for something but not as much so likeability or trust. This is what gave Eisenhower easy wins, not to mention Kennedy and Reagan. Even Jimmy Carter won his first election on personal qualities, while losing his second when he became waspish and wimpish. Bush I had the likeability edge over Dukakis, while Clinton won partly for the same reason, as GHWB began to look usnsure of himself. Bush II had the likeability and trustworthiness edge over both his opponneents. I could go further, back to Truman/Dewey.

Romney comes over as insincere and untrustworthy, which is why he's a bad bet in November. Santorum is by no means perfect in this regard, but his apparent trustworthiness -- his ability to convince the base of his sincerity -- is allowing him to succeed against Mitt.

runningdeer| 3.15.12 @ 10:31PM

I agree with most of what you said but not that you didn't mention Obama. He was well liked in 2008 and to some now he is still popular but for the most part he has lost his appeal. i doubt that he can regain that edge since it was mostly contrived by the media and by groomers. He practiced. Yet now the people have seen him in action and most are cold to him.
Romney might not be warm and come off as a fun sort of a guy but he is real enough to win and he has some very good back up to help him get through to the heart's and fun zone of the people. Newt is just keeping him sharp. Santorum is a nice guy. That is all I can say about him. He seems like a nice guy with a nice family.

JJ| 3.15.12 @ 12:16PM

Notice the "not afraid of Mormonism" bias in Tucker's bias. He is a Romneyite, trying to rationalise Romney as the more likely candidate to win. He ignores that the "upscale voters" (talk about a snobbish term) are decreasing in number and are no more likely to carry Romney over the finish line than there were able to carry Dole or Mc Cain over the finish line.

Cato| 3.15.12 @ 3:31PM

Romneyite or not, there's only one question Tucker forgot to ask, and it's the question that puts all the inane comments to rest.

The Question: Who is winning the delegate count?

Thom| 3.15.12 @ 4:54PM

McCain won the delegate count in 2008.....

Thom| 3.15.12 @ 5:25PM

Compared to where Romney is today in delegate and popular vote count, Romney is way behind even McCain when there was a three way race in 2008 R primaries.

JJ| 3.16.12 @ 12:01AM

Who just came in third in Alabama and Mississippi? I would say if Romney is a front- runner, he is a very weak front-runner, who would have trouble even do better than Mc Cain.

Thom| 3.15.12 @ 4:53PM

Bill,
If "sound reasoning" were the primary arbitrator of winning elections Obama could not run for and win Dog catcher anywhere in the country given his record of accomplishments prior to 2008 but there he sits in the WH having received nearly 53% of a record number of the votes and still having support ranging in the mid-forties despite making Forrest Gump look like a genius over the last three years.

"Shilling" is what happens when you ignore facts about your own horse's weaknesses and put all your efforts into denigrating every other horse for their fallings in an effort to elevate support for your horse that it can't seem to win on its own merits. Forrest Gump should be able to easily beat Obama if he tries to run on this "record" but it seems Mitt can't run on his "political" record either. That includes losing to the "loser" of the 2008 election. This "sound reasoning" thing sounds a lot like "hope and change" to my ears, but "hey, that's just me" and over two thirds of the Republican primary voters. Winner take all allocations skew political support realities and I understand pragmatism. It isn't selling as well as it once did from what I've seen over the last decade or so of having pragmatics tell us to vote for the lesser of two evils.

If "sound reasoning" doesn't carry the day in Nov for you try to remember that the Government dependent society we have and all the massive fiscal problems that breeds like Fruit Flies is a social/cultural failing and people dependent on such will act quite rational whereas their own self-interests are concerned. Don't change the social/cultural incentives for government dependency and you can't solve the fiscal problems. Reagan and Bush both tried to "grow" us out of our long term fiscal mess. Didn't work and it just kicked larger and more dangerous problems down the road a bit. Continue to denigrate those that speak to the root of the problem(s) rather than just promise to make the symptoms go away by some magic trick is a real vote getter I hear. American politics hasn't been shown to fancy "sound reasoning" over much of its history but perhaps I shouldn't bring that up either.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.17.12 @ 8:25AM

I don't need your lecture or your explanation because I already know all that. We don't live in a perfect world. Ok. We all got that. Thanks for wasting our time.

Jack in Wi.| 3.15.12 @ 6:32AM

This is an intresting essay. Romney could win, but to what effect? He will be just the 4th Bush term. The electoral math is true. The demographics favor the Democrats. The Republican have been putting out brain dead candidtates for 24 years. They haven't had a new idea since the 80's. The slide will continue if Romney wins or not. He may slow it a bit, but not much. I would like anyone to explain to me how Romney will halt the economic and moral decline this country is in. All I see from him is more wars and more welfare for the banking class and other power elites. The author above is certainly right about Santorum. He is just not electable, and a it's a good thing too.

NVA Patriot| 3.15.12 @ 7:10AM

They had a lot of good Ideas in the 90's, ideas we implemented. Then the stupid party worked with the dems to get rid of the guy who did that - Newt.

After Newt we got the 'hammer' of lobbyist fame and then team Bush who gave us a new entitlement, gave us compassion\sarc, and laid the foundation for Obama.

L. Ross| 3.15.12 @ 7:34AM

Jack in Wi.
Excellent post. You addressed the topics the writer hit on, brought in some original insights of your own which logically explained your frustration. I knew you had it in you.

JJ| 3.15.12 @ 12:18PM

A little patronizing, don't you think?

Clint| 3.15.12 @ 8:33AM

Jack.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....U2AvSwzuok

Frank Drackman| 3.15.12 @ 10:50AM

Homo says what?

Clint| 3.15.12 @ 7:52PM

We Hear He Said His Name's Bibi & Dorkman's His BoyToy.

Michael Z. Williamson | 3.15.12 @ 12:22PM

Wars started by Republicans in the last century, US military casualties, 6000.

Wars started by Democrats in the last century, US military casualties, 5.5 million.

Democrats endorse assassination of US citizens, bailouts for failed banks, cronyism of lobbyists into cabinet positions.

But they're better than Republicans because...well, just because.

But I promise you this: If it comes down to Frothy vs Zer0, I will punish the Republicans and vote for Zer0.

George Collins| 3.15.12 @ 12:47PM

This country is not in an economic decline, it is in a recession, and it is suffering from over-regulation and over-taxation. There is a difference. The manufacturing output of the US is up; it's never been higher. Remember that most of the tech advances in the world are borne of American ingenuity, more than ever: Think Apple, Google, Intel, Genentech, Facebook (if you must), and countless others. If you are pining for buggy whips and rotary phones, try Eastern Europe. We live in an era of unprecedented prosperity. Now that's not to say people are not suffering: The rate of unemployment and underemployment are shameful, but that's the current administration's handiwork.
As far as moral decline, I think our wonderful, blessed country has always been home to perverts and amoral freaks, but we didn't have 24 hour news channels and a breathless public interested in soaking up the freakshow non-stop, all day long. The spotlight is shining brighter, and we are in a culture of massive information, all at one's fingertips. It takes some adjusting to.
But most of us have seen a tremendous decline in violent crime rates (see all of the obits for James Q. Wilson, including in the pages of The American Spectator) and an amazing increase in life expectancy and quality of life.
So, Jack in Wi, I'm not having the whining. Check out Louis CK on youTube in his "Everything's Amazing" skit, and there is a grain of truth there, in a funny way.
Cheer up, and be heartened that President Obama will only have one term and we will get this wonderful nation back on track and people back to work.

Boar Hunter| 3.15.12 @ 1:21PM

Why don't you go back to screaming death to the Jews? At least thats something you know about.

Appleby| 3.15.12 @ 6:38AM

Romney is not electable because a number of states that usually vote Republican will not vote for him -- not because he is a Mormon, but because he is a rich, condescending, out of touch Yankee and Not One Of Us.

gearjammer| 3.15.12 @ 8:10AM

Not enough of you"us" to get elected dog catcher. It is the burbs pal and they don't go to church all that much. They just want a good economy, and beneath the surface worry in other ways about things like illegal immigration, and a totally corrupt culture. The idea of a goood CEO is ok with them. The America you crave is gone. But, the 10th ammendment will allow you to have a version of it in many places-unless Obama and his ilk continue their rise.

Teflon93| 3.15.12 @ 8:46AM

You've confused "the burbs" with the "inner city". The Burbs is where the churchgoers are. The rest is wishful thinking on a MittBot's part.

gearjammer| 3.15.12 @ 9:18AM

You confuse burbs with rural America. Oh, and alot of those burbs where they go to church are really older next to city burbs and alot of those church goers are Hispanic and not automatic GOP votes. They need tax payer provided services loke healthcare-which is why Catholic church supported Obama care. The burbs I refer to are upscale and alot white but no totally. Few here are pro life and anti gay -for them it is money and liberty.

TL| 3.15.12 @ 9:52AM

I'm an upscale suburbanite, a libertarian and an atheist. My problem with Mitt is not religion. It is "money and liberty." I simply do not beleive he will confiscate meaningfully less money, or confiscate meaningfully less liberty.

JJ| 3.15.12 @ 12:19PM

And liberty is a social issue.

Michael Z. Williamson | 3.15.12 @ 12:23PM

So, you're voting for 0, then...

gearjammer| 3.15.12 @ 4:08PM

Compared to whom ? I mean ron Paul ? He's saying things that are pie in the sky. None of the others, including Romney want to regulate you to death. Seriously. Being upscale you have a job. maybe ypu are an exec. So you judge resumes. So if you did not have a great career, you needed econ growth to get off the ground-who is the best qualified ?

Seek| 3.15.12 @ 7:24PM

Going to church doesn't necessarily make for a religious zealot. The zealots are going for Santorum, not Romney or Gingrich.

Shamus| 3.15.12 @ 9:50AM

My guess is that Obama will be reelected, but there's some chance that Romney could win. Romney's big negative is indeed his personality. However, it's possible that voters could decide that they've had enough of Obama, who seems to have a knack of alienating huge segments of the American electorate. It's more of contest to see who voters dislike most, rather than who they like better .

AVCurmudgeon| 3.15.12 @ 1:06PM

Romney's big problem is that, all said and done, he is an empty suit trying to fill that suit with phrases and notions he thinks will sell. Speaking for myself at least, I want a candidate who is who he says he is. That's a major reason I like Sarah: warts and all, she is true to herself. Romney says he is who he thinks a plurality want him to be and stands for what he thinks the plurality want him to stand for.

That said I do think 2012 will be a referendum on Obama -- his policies, his attitude, his style, his core beliefs -- and I think that in fact a majority of Americans reject who he is or at least will do so when it is exposed to the unremitting light of day, something Obama has never had to confront in his entire so-called "career".

I wish there were a genuine conservative in the race. As it is, I guess it's coming down to who is most likely to do the least harm.

Quartermaster| 3.15.12 @ 8:36PM

I've been saying for two years that Obama will be reelected as there is no one of substance that will run on the GOP ticket. Romney is as much of an empty suit as Obama. That he ran Bain capital, and well from all that I read, is really not of much. FedGov is not a business, and can not be run as a business. McNamara and the Whiz kids tried that with JFK and LBJ and you can go read about what happened there.

To turn this country around will take someone of political will to stand up to the rest of the corrupt system. None of the midgets running are that man. All they really want is to see that their faction gets power and the goodies. That's what Lincoln was all about, and what most of the presidents since have been about.

George Collins| 3.15.12 @ 9:41PM

Romney will win and the Senate and the House will go Republican. Then what do you do? What will be your problem then? Why not move to Montana or Idaho and wait out the black helicopters?

Bobloblaw| 3.15.12 @ 6:59PM

Which states would those be? Start naming them.

Quartermaster| 3.15.12 @ 8:39PM

N the end we will see, but I think he will have to fight even for those states that have gone GOP in the last 40 years. he will have to spend so much effort and money fighting for those states that he will not be able to adequately contest the swing states. The result will be the GOP pulling defeat from the jaws of victory once more as they did in '92 and '96.

RobertS| 3.15.12 @ 6:43AM

Your essay ignores the government destroying healthcare and imposing mandates! That is a huge issue, but very inconvenient for Romney and his supporters.

JJ| 3.15.12 @ 12:20PM

It also ignores that these have been open primaries and democrats have crossed over in these areas to vote for Romney, because he is an easy target for Obama.

Cpl. Punishment| 3.15.12 @ 3:31PM

The exact opposite is true. Most of the crossover voters (8% out of 10% in MI) voted for Santorum.

JJ| 3.16.12 @ 12:02AM

You are only talking about 1 state.

Harm| 3.16.12 @ 5:13PM

Liar! All Dems have been in full Santorum support mode for the past 2 months. They fear Romney for very good reason....

Matt | 3.15.12 @ 1:56PM

how do you destroy something by mandating it to be done...

if anything it creates more of the same in our healthcare industry...

RobertS| 3.15.12 @ 6:47AM

And, regarding PA, it just elected Pat Toomey as Senator, arguably more conservative than Santorum or Romney. I'd say PA is in play for a real conservative.

NVA Patriot| 3.15.12 @ 7:12AM

So are fair and square elections - just look at how delegates were assigned in MI. That's the future if we get Mitt as President - Mitt wins, everyone else has to lose.

gearjammer| 3.15.12 @ 8:13AM

Toomey and Santorum were different people. Toomey was all about the economy and economic liberty. He was acceptable to suburbanites-spoke their language.

George Collins| 3.15.12 @ 6:40PM

PA is definitely in play.

NVA Patriot| 3.15.12 @ 7:05AM

Mr. Tucker - Have you spent any time in Virginia?

Did you happen to bother to look at the Primary election in VA? Turnout was down 48% from the last presidential primary. In that primary it was McCain vs. Huckabee. Of the folks who showed up this time, 41% voted against Mitt Romney by voting for Ron Paul. When you proportionally combine these numbers, that's effectively a 68% rejection of Mitt Romney.

The Tea Parties in VA orchestrated this year’s primary vote, we were targeting a 20-25% Ron Paul protest vote. We got 41%.

Mitt is a voter turn-out disaster.

Politics is simple if you don't get your voters to show up you lose. Mitt doesn't have any support that he doesn’t buy. He is the establishment that has helped Obama take us to where we are. His true colors are summed up in his refusal to flip flop on the single most liberty stealing disaster ever – O-Romney-care; piloted in MA and rolled out Nationwide to crush the American people and subject them to Washington. And make no mistake that’s how it’s perceived both consciously and subconsciously by voters.

In NVA we see the same problems everyone else in America sees. Except we know the dirty little secret of government. 95% of Government 'workers' do nothing. For every gov-e (Pronounced guv-ee) 'worker' there are 3-5 contractors who actually do the work for our overlords. The workers suffer under the whims of these gov-e workers and we see how they conduct themselves. The contractors, as a class, don't much care for the overlords as a class, but they have to be quiet, else they lose their jobs. It makes being a Tea Party activist in NVA particularly tricky.

If the 'Stupid' party put forth a leader with credibility, they would sweep VA. Mitt's not that guy. Santorum was the number 3 union-loving establishment hack in the Senate, but at least he gets the O-Romneycare disaster. Mitt and Santorum are far more closely aligned to the overlords than to the contractor class. It's noticed and the primary results reflect the assessment.

Renaissance Nerd | 3.15.12 @ 2:02PM

Just who is this establishment some keep talking about? I despise conspiracy theories of every kind, but this one is particularly noxious as it's so obviously false. If there were an establishment that ran everything in the party and they wanted Romney, guess what? He'd already have clinched it. Nobody is controlling who we all vote for. Y'all are falling for the petite-fascist propaganda. I voted for Romney, based on my very own considerations. I'm not enthusiastic about him at the moment, I just figured he was the best of a bad lot, but I sure as heck will be SUPER enthusiatic by November!

NVA Patriot| 3.15.12 @ 3:45PM

I feed 1 troll per day - you're it.

Bob McDonnell Governor - is a Romney Surrogate. Bill Bolling is Lt. Governor and is Romney's VA campaign chair. Bolling's special assistant on the state payroll is in NVA 1x/week promoting all things Romney. Barbara Bush and Bush loyalists have all fallen in line behind Romney. Romney loyalists were in charge of counting and qualifying signatures for Newt & Perry in VA. Funny thing happened - a lot of signatures were disqualified that in past elections would not have been...

So don't slam me for being a conspiracy believer. I just look at uncomfortable things like who's on whom's payroll via money, political pay-offs, or campaign donations as shown in VPAP which is quite informative when you learn to read it.

There is an establishment. They are backing Romney. They hate anyone or anything that is a true threat to the gravy train.

The proper response to the establishment is more Tea.

Response to trolls - no more than 1 feeding\day ;)

Al Adab| 3.15.12 @ 5:06PM

VA is definately on the Must Win list. Colorado not so much. The magic four, IMHO, are FL, VA, NC and Ohio. That totals 75 and the '08 margin was 70. Other combinations are too risky with CO and NM equaling VA (14 to 13) only PA hold promise of breaking things open. If any McCain state switches sides, game over. So the question for the GOP is: Who wins the magic four?

George Collins| 3.15.12 @ 9:42PM

Right on RN! Romney will win and then the work starts.

Brian M| 3.15.12 @ 4:54PM

Harry Reid and Christopher Coons appreciate your hard work.

Drake| 3.15.12 @ 7:09AM

I wouldn't write off New Jersey. We like our Republican Governor, we are overtaxed, and the voters are waking up. The state is a lock if Christie is the VP candidate.

Win or lose, Republicans should force the Democrats to spend in our expensive media markets.

Frank Drackman| 3.15.12 @ 7:09AM

Clint, if you post, your a Homo.

Frank

Clint| 3.15.12 @ 8:03AM

Not My Post, Israel Firster Smear Bund Sugar Pockets, Dorkman.

Call Your Mancrush, Bibi.

Frank Drackman| 3.15.12 @ 10:50AM

Homo says what?

Clint| 3.15.12 @ 7:54PM

You Already Said It, Queer For Bibi, Dorkman.

SUBVET| 3.15.12 @ 8:14PM

Clint & Frank when are you 2 immature excuses going to grow up. Your posts day after day using the same low class remarks get old.

Put some clothes on and get out of the basement.

Clint| 3.15.12 @ 9:19PM

Mind Your Own Business, SubVet.

Vox populi| 3.15.12 @ 7:18AM

The worst enemy social conservatives have is their own stupid, extremist supporters, who have no idea of political tactics and embarrass the candidates with their nutty outbursts in their "support." I speak from personal experience.

Appleby| 3.15.12 @ 7:22AM

Yeah, if the People would just shut up and do as their overlords decree, wouldn't this be the America we knew and loved again...

PattyMor| 3.15.12 @ 7:33AM

Well everywhere Mitt wins, the voter turn out is down. This doesn't bode well for the fall election.
Because if you don't turn out your base, you're toast. Its that simple. And Mitt is poison to Conservatives. So what if he wins the Latte crowd, but loses in reliably Red State?

So its either Santorum or Gingrich or its bust. Lil' Ricky voted for GWB's boondoggles and supported union iniatives. RedState had four pages of them listed. Personally I'm a Newt gal because his record of accomplishments is better than the rest. If need to learn one thing from the 2008 election: that a person's record is telling you the truth about that person. Political blather is cheap and real cheap when uttered by
those running for the Presidency.

Michael Z. Williamson | 3.15.12 @ 12:24PM

If it's Frothy or Grinch, Zero wins. End of story. If you believe otherwise, you're using medical marijuana.

NVA Patriot| 3.15.12 @ 3:49PM

You're exactly right & if you want the full measure of St. Rick, check out politjim.

http://www.politijim.com/

The game is first deny Romeny 1000 delegates. 2nd let Rick talk. 3 beat them on ballot 2 of the convention. 4 let Newt chat 3x in public with Obama on national stage on any topic.

George Collins| 3.15.12 @ 9:47PM

Primaries are very different from the General Election. Keep that in mind. Romney will not lose reliably Red States. He will win Florida, Pennsylvania, probably Michigan, and the rest of the map that Mr. Tucker laid out. Don't be a loser.

The American Hitman| 3.15.12 @ 7:49AM

hmmm, if so, why did Mutt get crushed in Colorado a few weeks ago. He did squeak by Ron Paul in VA, I'll give you that.

Dick Nome| 3.15.12 @ 8:58AM

The Romney/ Paul ticket got approved in VA. They were the only two on the ballot.

L. Ross| 3.15.12 @ 8:00AM

A couple of points. Boulder, Colorado is the center of gravity for the state? That is the equivalent of saying Yakima is the center of gravity for Washington state ( I know, I just looked it up). The Denver metro area has over half the population of the state. Add in Colorado Springs and its environs and you have probably two thirds of the total population. To select a small hyper-liberal community and say that it is going to swing the election is just nuts. Austin does not vote the way Texas as a whole does. Flagstaff does not control the voting pattern of Arizona. Just had to get that off my chest.

Second, I think it may be time for a reality check. I don't care for Romney. However, he is a much better candidate than McCain. He is telegenic (what presidential hair!) He can make a reasonable claim to being a genuine problem solver. He can speak knowledgably about the economy. McCain could do none of these things. McCain was mean, old, with a marital history every bit as sordid as Gingrich's (check it out if you don't believe me) and nearly as gold digging as Kerry's (check it out if you don't belive me). The democratic base could not have possibly been more fired up than they were, and still the election wasn't a blow out. It wasn't a landslide. We took the House back in two years and made real gains in the Senate. I'm just saying, all is not lost, your average name from the phone book would be better than BHO, and the closet muslim in the White House can't run on leprechaun gold and unicorn farts this time. BHO ain't gunna raise no billion dollars this time out. Don't get all down. This election is far from over, and we have a terrific chance to turn this country around. We may not be able to make as big a course correction as we would like with Romney, but when it comes to picking between Romney and BHO, it's a no brainer.

Bill| 3.15.12 @ 8:22AM

The Southern Brawl:
1. Romney 2. Gingrich 3. Santorum
So far, 356 delegates from the South have been allocated to top 3 contenders. Romney leads with 160 delegates, followed by Gingrich with 116 delegates, and lastly Santorum trails both contenders with just 80 delegates. Even though Santorum won 4 southern states but he is far behind than Romney and Gingrich.
It ain't over yet in the South.
We have to see what happen in the upcoming contests in LA, AR, KY, and TX.
Asking Gingrich to drop out from the GOP race is premature. Gingrich is not a front-runner, but he is the "wild-card", considering Sarah Palin voted Gingrich in AK.

Dmac | 3.15.12 @ 11:17AM

Don't forget Rick Perry endorsed Gingrich and he has appeal to Texans because he says whats on his mind and doesn't seem to care whay others think of it. He has that bit of arrogance just like most Texans (and Imean that in a good way). He's proud and when he's right he won't back down. He'll carry Texas big time.

Bill| 3.15.12 @ 12:44PM

Gov. Rick Perry is a legend. During the 2010 midterm election, DNC spent over $300 million to capture TX, but Gov. Perry and the Tea Party fended off their "foiled ploy." Without Go. Perry, TX won't be "Red" anymore.

john dubose| 3.15.12 @ 6:50PM

Long time Texan here. Texas is deep red. Even so called minorities are at best luke warm on Obama. Perry is a good old boy we can replace at leisure.

markenoff| 3.15.12 @ 11:39AM

Gingrich for VP. We can balance nutty Joe with nutty Newt. That's a debate I want to see.

Nick| 3.15.12 @ 5:41PM

"That nigger lover President Clinton had the pen and vetoed so many good bills passed by the Gingrich-led Congress."
- Written by Bill the Bigot, in the Time for Newt to Do the Honorable Thing thread:

http://spectator.org/archives/.....ent_749403

You're a moron and a racist, Bigot Bill.
GO AWAY!

JimP| 3.15.12 @ 8:26AM

D.C. Metro internet business workers will decide which way Virginia goes? No disrespect intended but the author is ignoring all the federal employees and government contractor employees located in the DC Metro area who will likely decide. Them and NY transplants. I live in central VA and I see cars with NY tags regularly and they are not from the same households. Seeing all the NY tags tells one all one needs to know about NY if you didn't know already.

I'm off to investigate the internet businesses in VA. I had no idea there were so many.

JimP| 3.15.12 @ 8:59AM

Caveat: I see from NVA Patriot's comments that I may be mistaken in my assessment of how government contractors may vote. I bow to his greater expertise on the matter. Thanks for the posts NVA Pat.

RodneyRodz| 3.15.12 @ 1:47PM

I can save you the trouble. All the internet business is in the Tyson's Corner. They have at least 5 of the largest data centers in the county. Also, NY is a large state with people from Rochester, Buffalo and all in between. Your bias is pathetic. Make sure you watch out for the massholes and Pittsburgh crowd too. DC area attracts people from all over.

JimP| 3.15.12 @ 3:00PM

Sounds like I hit a nerve. If you reread my comment, you'll note I said NY, not NYC. Also, now that you mention it, I do run into lots of "Massholes" and an equal number of Putzburghers. Thanks for the 'headsup' about DC attracting people from all over. Duh. Big revelation. Who DOESN'T know that?/s Thanks for pointing out the obvious. My bias? So, you are sore because I didn't give Putzburg or upstate NY credit for sending a bunch of beltway A-holes to the DC Metro area?

R Martin| 3.15.12 @ 8:32AM

"If Republicans make birth control and separation of church and state the major issue, they will go Democratic. If the Democrats mess up the economy and produce $4.50 gas and 8.3 percent unemployment, they will swing Republican. That will probably decide the 2012 election."

The Democrats have already messed up the economy, gas will likely hit $4.50 this year and, using factual data, 8.3 percent unemmployment is going to seem like the good old days. More important, it is the Democrats who are making birth control and contraception an issue with their demagoguery. Separation of church and state is a constitutional issue. Therefore, the 2012 election should be in the bag for Republicans...if they don't campaign like McCain.

Gary B| 3.15.12 @ 8:42AM

Even worse, Republicans may run the type of campaign that lost to McCain.

As I've said before, American conservatives are the most betrayed people on earth. What is it about Reagan and his campaigns that's so difficult to understand?

Bo Darville| 3.15.12 @ 10:29AM

Part of the problem is that we seem to have run out of Reagans and are left with an over-abundance of Santorums.

Willis| 3.15.12 @ 11:19AM

Let's see, the type of campaign which lost to McCain was run by...gasp, I can't say it.

Seek| 3.15.12 @ 7:27PM

Reagan focused mainly on the economy and fighting Communism. That's how he won twice. "Social issues" weren't a high priority, contrary to the illusions of Sarah Palin-style fundamentalists.

Nick| 3.15.12 @ 7:56PM

El wrongo, Seek.

Social issues (i.e., abortion and the E.R.A.) are why my parents left the democrat party for good, in the 1970s, and would even consider voting for someone like former governor Ronald Reagan.

If Bush had been the nominee while still remaining pro-abortion, they probably would've stayed home.

George Collins| 3.15.12 @ 9:49PM

Yes, RM, you are right. Doc Romney is the man.

Gary B| 3.15.12 @ 8:38AM

So, we have all of these highly-educated, upwardly mobile young professionals sitting on the fence. If the Republican candidate looks at them crosseyed just once, they'll vote for Obama... again.

Really? If that's true, then they're willing to vote against everything American stands for because they're down for the immoral side of a couple of social issues. God help us if we have to pander to this dumbass crowd.

How many times must Republicans learn this lesson: Conservative principles win elections. Pandering to moderates is a guaranteed loser. In a time when well over half of the people in the country are self-described conservatives, why in hell would you bend over for squishy, pro-abortion moderates.

Bo Darville| 3.15.12 @ 10:31AM

Conservative principles do win elections. Unfortunately, they have to be communicated in a manner that doesn't make 67% of the country wet their pants. You wouldn't think finding somebody that can do that would be so hard but evidently it is.

Dmac | 3.15.12 @ 11:26AM

Voters are no different than children, they all long to be told what to do and they readuly accept it if they know in their hearts its whahts good for them. Thats what made Reagan appealing. Reagan was able to come across as a dad to all of us. He was confident in the American people and he was able to get that across. Gingrich could pull that off, but htere's no way Romney or Santorum can, it's just not in their personalities.
Ask yourself these two questions? When Reagan was president, did you feel safe when you went to bed at night? Answer, yes. Who would make you feel safe or secure when you go to bed at night, Gingrich, Romney or Santorum? I answer Gingrich.
People want to vote for a straight shooter, or who they perceive as a straight shooter. In my mind that straight shooter seems to be Newt. We need a leader who's not afraid to embrace our allies and let our enemies know thats what we think of them. It makes for a safer world when other government know where they stand with us. I don't remeber any country threating the United States when Reagan was president. They know he would not hesitate to know the crap out of them. If Kaddafi were alive you could ask him.

Gary B| 3.15.12 @ 12:42PM

And, in today's upside-down world, our own government is the biggest threat of all.

Police departments across the land are getting federal granst to militarize. This encourages the worst kind thugs to join up and start looking for a convenient door to kick in.

Remember the cop on the beat? Well, forget that...

What frightens you most? A foreign terrorist in some third-world rockpile or a search of your car by the cops?

Teflon93| 3.15.12 @ 8:45AM

Let me tell you something, Tucker---you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

There simply aren't enough educated, upscale MittBots here in NC for Mitt Romney to win. This is NASCAR country---lose the BBQ vote and you lose this state.

And believe you me, if liberal Romney is the GOP nominee, he WILL lose that vote.

The math is simple: Barack Obama is going to get at least one out of every two "urban upscale" voters while he will be lucky to get two out of every ten rural voters. Since there are a lot fewer "urban upscale" voters as a general rule---and since they tend by definition to be concentrated in Democrat enclaves---running a Romney will lose more GOP stalwart voters than gain new GOP voters.

You, sir, are truly breathtakingly ignorant of basic political calculus.

Seek| 3.15.12 @ 12:20PM

Love of good BBQ -- count me in -- doesn't necessarily translate into radical social conservatism. Tucker got it right; North Carolina is crucial.

George Collins| 3.15.12 @ 9:52PM

North Carolina is a lock for Romney. People are not stupid, and even the Vibrator, or Bubbles, or whatever the name of the outgoing Governor is, she will probably vote for Romney. Put it in the Red column.

mjs_pa| 3.15.12 @ 8:56AM

The only think worse than 4 more years of obama would be 8 years of romney!

Cpl. Punishment| 3.15.12 @ 3:37PM

Well I'll tell you. I live in MA and the best governor we have had in the last 50 years has been Romney.
You may want to look into what he really did vs. what the media (both sides) tell you. Mitt won't do it as he doesn't like to toot his own horn. In MA (solidly dem legislature) what he accomplished is astonishing. Most of what Santorum has run in adds has been no where near reality. Mitt's problem is he doesn't feel that responding to the BS is in any way productive.

The result, folks just take it as gospel that it is true. 10 seconds on google would prove otherwise.

Al Adab| 3.15.12 @ 5:09PM

Romney the best in 50 years. I believe it. Weren't the others all Dems?

Quartermaster| 3.15.12 @ 8:49PM

Weld wasn't a Dem, but he might as well have been. Mittens really didn't accomplish much when you come down to it. He acted as we would expect a new England Republican to act, like a liberal, which is what they are. Mittens might have been better in relative terms, but that is saying very, very little good about the man.

Indy| 3.15.12 @ 9:14AM

Aside from the nominee, there are other factors to consider in the election.

NC Governor vetoed Photo ID, Perdue is so unpopular, she is not running for re-election (did she make that decision all by herself or did O tell her to step aside so as not to drag down the ticket?)

Americas Elect is expected to be on the ballot in most states, there are Ds, Rs and Is unhappy with choices they could vote for the Libertarian candidate or the Americas Elect candidate (which is by design, has anyone been able to follow the money to see who is behind this group, my bet is Soros money funneled in from somewhere)
http://www.americanselect.org/who-we-are

The Ron Paul factor, I have seen many posts and met RP supporters who will not vote for the GOP nominee unless it's RP, there also strong anti-Romney, anti-Santorum and anti-Newt feelings, will we rally around the nominee?

The GOP ground game is high school level while D's are the pros - that is definitely the case in my area. The D's have more offices, paid positions, have been on the ground working for months which is obvious by the trending in voter registration. The GOP cannot even get precinct chair positions filled, are well short on needed poll watchers and on and on

Unions, Acorn, a poorly educated electorate etc. THE MEDIA

In fact, O has his $1Billion fund raising goal but that doesn't include the "in kind" contributions from the media who actively work to support him. Shouldn't the lead story in papers be the new CBO estimate of $1.76Trillion? Check your paper, my leftist paper is not running the story, go figure

That's a lot to overcome, it can be done but none of the candidates will turn out the vote. Turnout will be driven by OMG - Obama Must Go

Dmac | 3.15.12 @ 11:33AM

Indy, good post, but I disagree that the Dem's are the pro's at running a campaign. I think it is more of a case of, the Republican leadership is so poor and balless and refuse to confron the Dems. Add to that they still after 30 years have not figured out how to handle today's media and its slant to the left. In otherwords, it's not that the Democrats are so good at it, it's that the Republicans are that bad at it.

Indy| 3.15.12 @ 12:40PM

Point taken, you are right about the weakness of the GOP leadership, the women have the stones in the party....

I can only comment on weakness of the GOP ground game based on my direct involvement with grassroots teams, and reading comments from others around the country who are experiencing the same thing. The cocktail party shows up for the wine and cheese...they certainly did for the 2010 elections to take all the credit when they had little to do with it, thank you Tea Party now go away while we run the show.

TL| 3.15.12 @ 9:34AM

The choice is not between "making a statement" and "winning an election." Sadly, there is no "winning" option even on the table for folks who want to be something resembling free before we die.

William L. Gensert| 3.15.12 @ 9:55AM

The Presidency is the prize, and it's ripe for the picking.

America must Breitbart Barack; it's the only way he can be defeated.

Read more of my article: http://www.americanthinker.com.....z1pC3zQrXT

Gary B| 3.15.12 @ 10:09AM

This is 100% correct. The question is... will the Republican candidate be up to it? Newt and several others would be. Romney? I don't think so. Santorum? Maybe.

The Republican must aggressively slam both Obama AND the enemedia. He or she must have them on the defensive all the time. Newt, if he's willing, can do this from the sidelines as Palin does. And, he'd be good at it. Republicans must understand this is a gun fight. So, we haven't seen it, except from Newt on occasion.

JimP| 3.15.12 @ 10:50AM

True. But as we all know, the GOP establishment has no gun fighters. This despite the "Young Guns" naming themselves with these unfitting words a la George Costanza picking his own nickname: "T-Bone". The GOP establishment are all Cowardly Lions, and they are all convinced Obama cannot lose.

Al Adab| 3.15.12 @ 5:16PM

On a collateral issue, regarding the nominee selection process, the primaries, why should the GOP delegates come in such large numbers from states like CA (winner take all) which will not deliver its electoral votes to the GOP nominee? Similar question in re NY, NJ, IL and others. Large delegate counts but not winnable states in most instances. Should the GOP voters in states which will be lost actually select the nominee? I realize the question is somewhat callus, but the math is relentless.

JimP| 3.15.12 @ 5:57PM

Great point. Maybe the GOP establishment types want it this way since they prefer to be dime store Dems rather than Reagan conservatives.

Matt | 3.15.12 @ 10:11AM

If Romney wins, there will be a third party challenger in the South. Obama didn't lose by that much in Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia. If a third party candidate can take 10% of the republican vote, Obama could win the South facing Romney as a nominee.

Nevermind he should win considering how far to the right the republicans have gone. Sorry but can't vote for this party that has fallen off the deep end into John Birch Society territory.

JimP| 3.15.12 @ 10:47AM

LOL Oh please. Your reference to the JBS shows how far off the deep end you are, not the GOP.

Matt | 3.15.12 @ 11:38AM

Really, where in America would you hear Eisenhower being called a communist, socialist pinko. The JBS, as you call them. Obama is no more socialist than Eisenhower in action, and guess who is calling Obama a socialist? Half of the GOP presidential field, and most of it's media outlets.

JimP| 3.15.12 @ 3:15PM

"Obama is no more socialist than Eisenhower in action..."

You are going to have to do a detailed compare and contrast comment on this to convince me. Generally, I agree that the GOP since Cal Coolidge has been a watered down version of the Dems except for the Reagans years. But come on. Romney a conservative & John Bircher? Santorum? Socially conservative yeah, otherwise nothing impressive. Newt? He has his apostacies to conservatism but a John Bircher? Not. Give details please do a complete compare and contrast for us.

Al Adab| 3.15.12 @ 5:19PM

I dare say Matt is a bit confused over the "right winger" Romney. If he is to the right, what passes for a "moderate" republican, Olympia Snowe?

BTW JBS was hard line anti-communist, remember the Cold war? No longer an issue except perhaps in our own country.

JimP| 3.15.12 @ 6:07PM

I agree. Of course Matt probably thinks Obama is a classical liberal. Full disclosure: when I was making the comment I was allowing Matt's likely thinking about JBS' 'reputation' for being racist, antisemitic, paranoid anticommunist etc, etc. Personally I don't know how they feel these days. Back when Ike was President they seemed to go to far about Ike being a commie agent- or whatever it was. That Matt used them as a comparison is a stretch, and seems to indicate desperation, since I doubt most people have even heard of the JBS. Matt's going back half a century with the reference. Thanks for the comment and forcing me to clarify my from the hip statement.

Quartermaster| 3.15.12 @ 8:56PM

Welch and his minions were the problem with JBS. They have moderated a lot in the last 30 years. I haven't been able to dig deeply to see what is under deep cover, but their public face is nothing like what it was even in the early 70s.

Even so, Matt's allusions are in loony toons territory and can't be taken seriously.

Kenny| 3.15.12 @ 10:12AM

I come to agree with you, Mr. Tucker, especially when you say, "Rick Santorum is the antithesis. His entire appeal is to voters from rural areas who are already going to vote Republican anyway."

And here's my two-cents from the ground level in Ohio. The GOP will sweep Obama out along with that commie, Sen. Sherrod Brown. Mark it!

Michael K| 3.15.12 @ 10:12AM

I live in Virginia and I got a robocall from the DNC last night. And it is only March!!! UGH!

Bill| 3.15.12 @ 10:15AM

Romney is the inevitable nominee, considering his lead in the delegate math. Santorum is lagging behind, with poor showing many swing states like MI, OH, FL, while surging in the south. Gingrich is a "one man army" show. Ron Paul is "politically" done.

Interested Conservative| 3.15.12 @ 10:16AM

I'm no fan of Mitt, but the article omits one effect of his candidacy if nominated. Namely, he'll compete across the Midwest, and into Pennsylvania. Others would also, but I'm surprised that nobody seems to focus on the democrats weakness in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pa.. They could lose all three, and will likely lose at least one. If so, there goes the election. Two or more means a landslide.

I expect the democrats to realize this means it all comes down to Florida, so look forward to unbelievable senior scaring.

Michigan in particular will sow panic in democratic ranks. They need it more than the GOP needs Ohio.

Nite| 3.15.12 @ 7:42PM

The comment that Republicans will always vote Republican might work most times, but the conservative base, which includes Evangelicals do NOT like Romney. How well Republicans do is based on the turn out of the base. Obama may not win in Florida because the high cost of gasoline is eating us up here. TX is a delegate rich state and neither Romney or Obama plays well there except in places like Houston and Austin. Obamacare and Obama's policies have turned off a lot of people. Independents will likely go for the Republican nominee. Frankly, I am all for a brokered convention, especially if Romney does not make the cut.

Derek Leaberry| 3.15.12 @ 10:24AM

North Carolina and Indiana almost certainly will go Republican this time. With Rubio the likely VP, so should Florida. Ohio is where the war will be.

As a bolt-out-of-the-blue prediction, I'd say the odds of Joe Biden(who no longer gives Obama political advantage) stepping down as the VP candidate is one in four. The logical replacement would be Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has already said that she will not serve as Secretary of State during a second Obama term. She would likely add a degree of the mush-headed, divorced working-women vote, maybe enough to put Obama over the top in places like Ohio and Colorado.

Indy| 3.15.12 @ 12:43PM

"North Carolina and Indiana almost certainly will go Republican this time"

Overconfidence loses elections, I tend to think Indiana is more likely to go Red but I would not put NC in the win column, it will take work. The GOP got their tail kicked in 2011 elections

Derek Leaberry| 3.15.12 @ 1:28PM

The Republicans in North Carolina pounded the Democrats. I am not aware of any relevant elections in 2011.

Indy| 3.15.12 @ 2:21PM

Local races in 2011, town councils, school boards. The point is it was a trial run for 2012 and the GOP - face palm in key areas. The 2010 elections were sweeping at the state level but only 1 Congressional seat flipped and it was because Mr. Who Are You Bob Etheridge was caught on video, the race was close. 2012 will be different because of redistricting - more seats should flip Red but don't take the big race for granted, that's all I'm saying.

LarryK| 3.15.12 @ 10:34AM

We're doomed!

Bo Darville| 3.15.12 @ 10:41AM

I don't care who the GOP runs, I'll vote for them. We've got to get rid of Obama. Romney and Santorum seem like opposite sides of the 'Democrat stereotype of Republican' coin. Can somebody hit a reset button on this whole thing?

Matt | 3.15.12 @ 10:48AM

I don't see a way republicans can win this... either they will incite the liberal base to vote if santorum is nominated, or they will incite the republican base to leave the party if romney is nominated.

Cpl. Punishment| 3.15.12 @ 3:45PM

This is exactly what is wrong with the right. We will only except the absolute perfect candidate.
Well, let me clue you in. That person does NOT exist anywhere. All of the candidates have positions that you can support and some you can't.

What needs to be taken into consideration is which one Obama or (whoever gets the nomination) is the best for YOU and YOUR family.

I agree with Ron Paul that we should bring the troops home from places like Germany.
Imagine all the bases that were closed re-opening. Military bases create local jobs.

I agree the Constitution should be cited for every piece of legislation.

I do not agree that we should discard all drug laws.

I believe that we should drop the litmus test of pro vs. anti abortion and/or gay marriage.
These are social issues and the Gov't shouldn't be involved. I am anti-abortion but I do not
feel I have the right to legislate that morality.

The Gov't shouldn't even be in the business of "marriage". Marriage is a religious institution.
The gay marriage issue can all go away if all Gov't sanctioned unions were civil unions.

What I'm trying to say is if you seek the perfect candidate based upon moral and social grounds
you are a fool and if you will only vote for who you consider the perfect candidate you are delusional.

You might as well vote for Obama

Quartermaster| 3.15.12 @ 9:01PM

Sorry Corp, but Romney is far from perfect he might as well be a Dimocrat. He's trying to convince everyone that he really is severely conservative, but that statement alone shows just how out of it he is. After Dubya, who acted like a Liberal in Texas, and then went to DC as a "Compassionate Conservative" and acted like a moderate Democrat, people are looking at Mittens behavior as MassGov, and the picture is truly ugly. Far more ugly than Dubya's was.

Mike Rogers | 3.15.12 @ 10:58AM

Hmmm, maybe.
Let's revisit those numbers if Santorum sweeps Pennsylvania.

jsamp| 3.15.12 @ 11:04AM

This article reminds me of a great How-to article: "How to be a millionaire and enjoy a very happy life" Step 1. Become a millionaire. Now, Step 2......
I'll buy your premise that IF the race came down to one or two states that are dominated by affluent, money-driven, yuppies who only care about the economy, then Romney would be the best bet. However, you're skipping Steps 1-48. Romney, just like McCain in '08, WILL NOT energize the base of the party. And somewhere along the way election night, we'll see a red state, or two...or three jump into the Dem column because Republicans do not want to support another moderate for B.O. to backhand away with a "you're almost like me anyway" argument. The thing that is going to pull away voters from 4 failed years of "hope and change" is to move in the opposite direction. Not just make a slight modification with a moderate who once held positions that any Democrat would support whole-heartedly. Santorum is not the perfect candidate, but he's going to provide a clear contrast to what B.O. has subjected this country to for 4 years. A vote for Romney is a vote for another four years of Obama Hell.

prsmith| 3.15.12 @ 11:10AM

Stop It! Stop It! Stop It!

Because his parents were not U.S. citizens when he was born, Rubio is not a natural born citizen and is, therefore not eligible to run for Veep under the 12th Amendment.

TrueBlue | 3.15.12 @ 12:51PM

The immigration status of his parents doesn't mean anything. By the 14th Amendment he is a "natural born citizen" because he was born here in the states.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

If his parents were illegals you could make that argument, but they were not.

Tim the Enchanter| 3.15.12 @ 2:06PM

The 14th amendment does not define "natural-born citizen". One Supreme Court case, however, does define exactly who is a natural-born citizen and who isn't. According to the Supreme's definition, neither Rubio nor Obama are natural-born citizens.

RCV| 3.15.12 @ 2:30PM

Absolutely false. The Supreme Court expressly said it was not deciding the issue and noted that authorities were split on the issue.

Al Adab| 3.15.12 @ 6:08PM

Current state of the law is: Born on US soil anywhere in the world = citizen; Born to a parent who is a US citizen = citizen. Obama qualifies, McCain qualifies, Juan Williams qualifies and Rubio qualifies.

Quartermaster| 3.15.12 @ 9:05PM

Current state of the law is that Rubio and Obama are *not* natural born. SCOTUS did decide it even if they claimed they weren't (and I know of no statement that says they made such a claim), and I have no idea why you would claim such trash RCV.

Under current state of case law, which has provided the only definition, you would be required to have two parents, both of whom were citizens at the time of your birth. If you want a different definition then you will have to wind your way back to SCOTUS.

RCV| 3.18.12 @ 11:09PM

The reason I claim it is that I read the opinion, I'm a lawyer, and that's in fact what it said. The issue of what is a "natural born citizen" was not even before the Court in that case, which involved whether women had the right to vote since they were citizens and The 14th amendment said all citizens were to be treated equally, and that states couldnot abridge their rights of citizenship. In tangentially discussing the issue of "natural born" citizen, the SCOTUS noted the views of commentators arcommon law, but then said more modern commentators had a broader view, but the Court needn't address the issue in the case before it.

RCV| 3.18.12 @ 11:10PM

SB "at common law". Sorry.

The Bruce| 3.15.12 @ 1:02PM

I brought this up recently at a different site and got slammed by, of all people, birthers.

loulou| 3.15.12 @ 2:24PM

These people who insist that Rubio is a natural born citizen are in denial.

Rubio is a native born citizen.

Cpl. Punishment| 3.15.12 @ 3:58PM

Natural-Born Citizen
The Congressional Research Service has stated that the weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion indicates that the term means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth," including any child born "in" the United States, even to alien parents (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements

Cpl. Punishment| 3.15.12 @ 4:04PM

Lynch v. Clarke, NY SC
Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.[29]

And further:

Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question.[30]

The decision in Lynch v. Clarke was cited as persuasive or authoritative precedent in numerous subsequent cases, including In re Look Tin Sing,[31] on the issue of whether the child, born in the U.S., to two Chinese parents (who were prevented by federal law from becoming U.S. citizens) was a U.S. citizen, notwithstanding the nationality of his parents or the fact that he had traveled to China with them and not returned to the U.S. for many years. The federal court held in a decision written by U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen J. Field) that he was a citizen by birth, and remained such despite his long stay in China, cited the decision in Lynch v. Clarke and described that case:

After an exhaustive examination of the law, the Vice-Chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen, and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind.[32]

The Lynch case was also cited as a leading precedent in the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which similarly held that the child born here of two Chinese parents was a birthright US citizen, and that decision also used the phrase "natural born".[33]

Al Adab| 3.15.12 @ 6:17PM

Natural and native is a distinction without a difference. Don't parse words.

At risk of becomming a smart alec, what about ceasarion birth, certainly not natural?

Quartermaster| 3.15.12 @ 9:08PM

There is a distinction, but not the silly strawman of the mechanism of birth. NY SC also has no real say in the matter.

Cato| 3.15.12 @ 4:11PM

The phrase "natural born" is not in the 14th Amendment. There are three decision paths, followed by another two paths.

The first three are: you are either born in the U.S., or you are naturalized in the U.S., or you are neither.

If you are neither, then full stop.

If you are either "born" or "naturalized" in the U.S., then the question is if you are subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

If you are not, then full stop.

So easy a caveman can do it.

FiddlerBob| 3.15.12 @ 11:56PM

You are exactly right. Mr. Tucker's math, while interesting, is focusing on the wrong equation.

The Constitution specifies that the President (Article II) and Vice-President (Amendment XII) must both be "natural born citizens".

For thousands of years every country in the world has recognized that those born in their country to citizen parents are "natural born citizens". Persons born in foreign nations and/or to one or more foreign parents gain their citizenship, if at all, only with the permission (positive law) of the home country.

This is a universally accepted principle of natural law and the law of nations.

Our founders were completely aware of this when they replaced the term "citizen" (used in earlier drafts of the Constitution) with "natural born citizen" at the request of George Washington and John Jay without dissent. Their goal was to ensure national security and prevent the office of President and Commander in Chief from being occupied by anyone with any foreign allegiance.

The selection of this term also required the creation of the "grandfather clause". No one was a "natural born citizen" at the time of the adoption of the Constitution regardless of the many generations that their families might have lived here.

Our Supreme Court recognized that a "natural born citizen" is one born in the country to citizen parents and further established this definition as binding legal precedent in Minor v Happersett, 1875.

Mr. Obama used this definition as a sponsor of SR 511 wherein he argued that John McCain is a natural born citizen because he was born under US jurisdiction on a US Naval base to citizen parents. Every Senator at the time except McCain signed off on this.

So, the principle has been established. Mr. Obama is not eligible because his legally established father was a British/Kenyan subject. This circumstance also places him outside the realm of the 14th Amendment which requires birth in the country under its jurisdiction. Remember, Mr. Obama has stipulated that he was born under British jurisdiction.

Where Mr. Obama was born has not been irrefutably established, yet. If he was born in Hawaii, as he claims, he is a citizen because of his mother. If he was born elsewhere - the most compelling evidence (compelling - not confirmed) shows he was born in Kenya - then he is not even a citizen. According to our laws at the time of his birth his mother was not old enough to transfer citizenship to Barry, if he was born abroad.

The ignorance, cowardice or treason of those who wish to avoid this issue does not change the facts. However, if we are to remain a Constitutional Republic and enjoy the fruits, privileges and responsibilities of liberty we need to face this head on.

Every candidate for the office of President or Vice President should be more than forthcoming in establishing that they are Constitutionally qualified for the office. It's a "no-brainer". They're seeking an office which demands that they take the following Oath or Affirmation: -- "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Mr. Obama's first official act was to violate this oath. As he is an affront to the Constitution, why is anyone surprised that he ignores it?

HFL| 3.15.12 @ 11:12AM

The article sound well thought out, however, isn't the author doing what liberals do so well: Divide the people up into neat little groups defined by one or two major likes or dislikes? It's not that simple. There is an underlying, all-encompassing passion pulsating in this great country, and I have a strong feeling that IT will determine the final outcome.

Derek Leaberry| 3.15.12 @ 11:13AM

It is ironic that DC has the only positive rating with regards to economic outlook. As a small businessman who commutes to Washington, I can attest that, after a small economic swoon in 2008-9, the District has moved ahead economically thanks to how much power has been centralized under Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama. What was once called in the 1970s "Chocolate City" by observers black and white, is now becoming a haven for high-income, two paycheck liberal whites. These beneficiaries of centralized liberal government are gentrifying much of what had been Minority Washington- Logan Circle, Shaw, Adams-Morgan, Mt. Pleasant, Brookland, far north 16th Street, the H Street NE corridor and a rapidly expanding concept of what is Capitol Hill, and even long-black neighborhoods like Franklin Park NE and Mt. Rainier. Regular Americans should be angry over this development which amounts to economic theft by a cognitive and well-positioned liberal economic elite.

Seek| 3.15.12 @ 12:22PM

I'm delighted that D.C. is going white. Is it a "coincidence" that crime rates there are well down over the past decade?

TrueBlue | 3.15.12 @ 12:28PM

Don't forget the repeal of the gun ban.

Seek| 3.15.12 @ 7:30PM

You're right about that. White people in D.C. can legally defend themselves, Clint Eastwood/Charles Bronson-style.

FiddlerBob| 3.16.12 @ 1:31PM

Did anyone else notice that there are tax breaks specifically for 1st time home buyers in D.C. that aren't available for anyone else? What's up with that? What ever happened to equal protection under the law?

loulou| 3.15.12 @ 11:30AM

Tucker wrote speeches for Lamar! Alexander??
That says it all.

platinumplates55| 3.15.12 @ 12:45PM

EXACTLY!!

ND4Ever | 3.15.12 @ 11:35AM

Very well stated.

TrueBlue | 3.15.12 @ 12:15PM

Not a single Romney supporter has yet given a real reason for why Romney is the better candidate. His business credentials don't mean anything; there are plenty of high profile successful, and VERY liberal, businessmen. He flips back and forth on his stances, while he was governor he supported liberal views. He's pro-gun control. He created Romneycare, regardless of whether or not it was subverted, with government he should have seen that coming. Him and his old gubernatorial staff helped Obama crafted Obamacare.

He comes off as insincere. My first thought when he stands up on stage and starts to smile is "used car salesman," and I'm not the only one. He looks exactly like every person Hollywood has picked to play a president, and we all know how GREAT Hollywood is at putting forth people of character.

Oh yea, let's not forget he distanced himself from Reagan and the conservative vote by going FAR Left when running against Ted Kennedy, and mentioning he didn't want a return to Reagan policies (the exact thing we need right now).

Romney supporters PLEASE give a real, full account of what qualifies him to be the REPUBLICAN candidate rather than another Democrat.

Cpl. Punishment| 3.15.12 @ 4:09PM

You should look into Romney yourself instead of believing what you are told.
And believe it or not, most MA voters do not consider Reagan policies all that good for them. I am not one of them but I know many who are.
Most of you think Scott Brown is a RINO but if you knew the electorate he had to deal with you would be amazed. You should peruse the Boston Herald on-line to get a feel for what Romney did and didn't do.

JimP| 3.15.12 @ 4:58PM

The flip side of your 'yeah but he had to deal with far left wackos in MA' explanation is, why would any conservative ever bother running in a state as socialistic as MA. Mitt has never made the case for conservatism, and still doesn't. Reagan carried MA, so why hasn't Mitt picked up the Reagan mantle or moved out of MA is a reasonable question. Plus, he will not renounce RomneyCare. These are clues to what really makes Mitt tick in the minds of reasonable people.

Nick| 3.15.12 @ 6:01PM

Excellent points, JimP.

If O'Romney was as much of a conservative as he merely asserts to be, he could have run for governor from his home state of Michigan, in '02.

Given this choice, we're supposed to believe that the "severely" conservative O'Romney decided to lie about his true beliefs, and run in one of the most liberal states in the nation, rather than run as a conservative in Michigan, where he could have been honest with the electorate?

Suuuuuuure, he's a conservative. Can anyone say McLame 2.0?

JimP| 3.15.12 @ 6:12PM

LOL I already had forgotten his "severely" conservative gaaf. "McLame 2.0". Touche!

Thom| 3.15.12 @ 6:49PM

At some point this narrative that Romney can get Democrat votes in places like Mass. starts to sound like a Salesman pushing his resume for a job in Hell because he thinks he can get sales there better than anyone else…..

Every time he says something to the effect that Obama doesn’t know the economy or how it works or is over his head he sends the message that he is either disingenuous or really doesn’t know who Obama really is as a person and what his mission is here. Obama has replayed every Marxist/Progressive failed econ idea going back 9 decades with predictable results and a deaf, dumb and blind moron would have gotten some things correct by now just out of the shear odds of success from flipping a two sided coin. It takes true skill or determination to get everything wrong about economics which is nothing more than a structured look at what human behavior response to or not in free markets. Obama defecates on the concept of “free markets” every day…..

dj spellchecka| 3.15.12 @ 12:28PM

if obama can keep ohio blue..that makes the gop math even harder....oddly the state wasn't mentioned

TrueBlue | 3.15.12 @ 12:31PM

That's because Ohio goes back and forth on a regular basis. It was mentioned early in the article though in regards to the Kerry/Bush matchup.

dj spellchecka| 3.15.12 @ 12:44PM

thanks...i continue to find it odd that ohio doesn't figure into tucker's current math...it still has more ec votes than va or nc...

CYA| 3.15.12 @ 12:33PM

Who ever wins in November, the excrement is sure to hit the fan.

Perhaps the key lesson Obama-as-president is providing those who are paying attention is that, even though there must exist a person wielding the power of the presidency, there are many more OTHER persons who use their own power to do positive or negative acts. Indeed, we each regularly employ what power we embody.

All hail powerlineblog.com! Today they link to a Forbes piece by Brian Domitrovic---read it and use your power appropriately—

“The most obvious problem with the economy during its mild boom from 2003 to 2007 was sectoral. There was way too much investment in things like housing, energy, and commodities.
Here are the stats. The Case-Shiller housing index blew past its usual secular peak of a 15% increase and went up by 90%. Oil did even more, retracing the upward march to $35 a barrel it had made in the 1990s, this time not stopping till it crashed through $100. And gold, which had been parked at about $300 an ounce for two decades, kept lifting its head up after 2003 such that it was brushing $1,000 by crisis time.
Given this lay of the land, you want to ask one question. Why the mad dash on the part of capital for housing, energy, and commodities?
Traditionally, activity of this sort will mean one thing: people aren’t trusting the dollar. Housing (which is to say land), energy, and commodities are all classic hedges against superfluous dollar production.”
Yes---it’s the dollar, stupid!

Therefore, my advice is to relegate most of your time, energy, and attention to the presidential race to the fringes, where they belong, and turn your focus on the continuing monetary inflation. And, do something about it!

Hey, wait a minute! As the article quoted above clearly points out, rising prices in housing, energy and commodities indicates that SOME people are doing something about it.

Join the awake gang, find as many ways as possible to be a true conservative, when it comes to your assets, which means getting out of the dollar and into real things. Gold is presently around $1,650, or I should say the dollar is worth 1/1,650 of an ounce of gold. A buying opportunity?

Would you rather trust Ben Bernanke or gold?

Vic| 3.15.12 @ 12:36PM

Great article in so far as it is analyzing the electoral map. But I have my doubts that Santorum (my 2nd choice and I am hopeful on his chances) or Gingrich (my 1st choice but he is a gonner now) are going to lose and Mitt (my always last choice, just one level better than the terrible Obama. Maybe I will just go away to the Mexico in the 1st week of November and make it easier on myself) going to win. The country is and will be divided red and blue as you have suggested with toss ups in Ohio, NH, Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico and Virginia. Romney can carry NH, Colorado and maybe New Mexico. He will therefore lose the election to Obama. If winning the election is all that matters and ideology is only a pain even then we should go for Santorum. Hailing from the midwest and a true blue collar guy, he will carry in that toss up column Ohio, Colorado, Virginia and Iowa. He will win and I will stay home to cast a ballot.

mainepreachr| 3.15.12 @ 12:39PM

I simply cannot see how Romney, whose plan in Massachusetts was a blueprint for Obamacare, will ever be able to draw enough of a distinction between himself and Obama to win. It is he who is unelectable

Republicans, despite the example of Ronald Reagan, always are drawn to the moderate choice and will never learn that true conservativism (including social conservatism) is not only good policy, but good politics.

Cpl. Punishment| 3.15.12 @ 4:17PM

Romney's plan was not even close to Obamacare. The original mandate was for strictly catastrophic insurance (you know the kind OCARE will eliminate due to mandated coverages) so that the state would not be paying for unreimbursed care. The Dem Governer who implemented it (another of Axelrod's customers) and the dem legislature changed it so much that it is not even close. YOu can't have a health plan in MA that doesn't cover in-vitro fertilization or unlimited substance abuse treatment plus many other mandates and they are currently looking to add 43 more.

Thom| 3.15.12 @ 6:28PM

Point taken but this is still valid. If you open the door to government mandates don't complain about someone who abuses what you laid the ground work for. That's why we have enumerated limits on government power spelled out in documents that are routinely ignored today. Some good hearted person opened the door a little and all the rest that rushed through the door were the "bad" people. Not my fault.....

Bill| 3.15.12 @ 12:42PM

Santorum won AL & MS. Big deal! Considering the delegate math:
AL: Santorum: 18 Gingrich: 12 Romney: 11
MS: Santorum: 13 Gingrich: 12 Romney: 12
Gingrich must remain in the race for the sake of America. He is authentic and has "bold" solutions.

Nick| 3.15.12 @ 6:05PM

http://spectator.org/archives/.....ent_749403

You're a moron and a racist, Bigot Bill.
GO AWAY!

antodav | 3.15.12 @ 12:42PM

This is such nonsense. The same upper to middle class suburban voters that this article claims will be deciding this election are just as likely to vote for Obama as they are for Romney. In fact, they are more likely to vote for Obama, because Obama is a known entity, whereas Romney with his constant flip-flopping is too much of an uncertainty for anyone except for the most wealthy, liberal northeastern Republicans—and Mormons out west who are not thinking about who really represents their church's values best. Mitt Romney will go down to Obama in much the same manner that Kerry went down to Bush in 2004—possibly worse, since his nomination will likely turn a lot of traditionally red states blue, not necessarily because conservative voters will vote for Obama, but rather because they won't bother turning out to vote at all. It is by no means a guarantee that if Romney is the nominee Tea Partiers, Evangelicals, and other social conservatives will automatically sell out, step in line, and rally behind him just because the party bosses tell them to. No candidate who fails to rally the base can win a general election, no matter how much appeal he might have to "moderates" (and not to independents, who consistently have tended to support Ron Paul over Mitt Romney by wide margins).

Shilling for the Republican establishment seems to be what this magazine does best now. I have very little use for it any more.

platinumplates55| 3.15.12 @ 12:56PM

http://www.redstate.com/erick/.....re-repeal/

If this isn't an election contrasting conservative, Constitutional values and statist liberalism and it turns into an argument over unemployment numbers, we would probably lose.

antodav | 3.15.12 @ 1:29PM

What the electoral map will probably look like in November if Mitt Romney is the nominee: http://www.270towin.com/2012_e.....?mapid=hRT

Gary B| 3.15.12 @ 12:45PM

Why is it so diffiuclt to find just one mean bastard with conservative values willing to fight and willing to run?

TrueBlue | 3.15.12 @ 12:55PM

Because most of those guys have skeletons in their closet, or people find them too abrasive and so won't elect them.

I much prefer the guy who is willing to speak to what the problem is and how to fix it over the guy that is just trying to be popular.

Peter| 3.15.12 @ 12:50PM

Clear, concise, educated column.
Superb analysis of ongoing struggle in the GOP.
Romney is the clear choice if Republicans want the White House!

mainepreachr| 3.15.12 @ 1:08PM

Why? Because he looks good on television? Because he governed as a liberal in liberal Massachusetts? Because he laid the foundation for Obamacare? Because he has a very cold, insincere and distinctly unlikable manner?

I'll take Newt or Rick any day.

charles parlato| 3.15.12 @ 1:10PM

Dear Mr. Tucker:
The arguments you have advanced are some of the same arguments the RINOs have advanced in favor of all the losers the party has backed for 50 years. Reagan faced very similar arguments. In 1992 in NY, the party was lectured by the sophisticates that Pataki was superior to London for supposedly the exact same reasons you have posited. Pataki won and then basically kicked away any chance for a viable conservative movement in the entire NE by being the elite RINO the RINOs wanted, all the while calling himself the practical conservative.

If we conservatives in the majority were to accept your argument, then we would always be required to vote for nominees whom we do not particularly like or trust because the same RINO elites are always more acceptable to the suburban brats who you contend control the country.
Rick Santorum should be the party's nominee because he best represents the New Republican Party. This is truth and honesty. The country and the world is entitled to the full and fair picture of our party rather than some manufactured truth by the likes of our self-appointed leaders.

Basically Mr. Tucker, get lost. Conservatives don't need your "insights" in order to decide on their best candidate.
Sincerely, Charles Parlato

The Bruce| 3.15.12 @ 4:27PM

"Real" conservatives don't vote against their beliefs or better judgement, something Santorum admitted to doing multiple times in a single debate.

Oh, and I'm sure he'll sail into the WH on what seems to be his latest campaign platform -- contraception and internet porn.

Kendall| 3.15.12 @ 1:10PM

As Dick Morris has pointed out, the primary electoral math favors Romney. I was leaning Santorum, but realizing that Romney is the odds-on favorite to capture the nomination, I am willing to get behind him. It's time to stop the bashing of Repubicans and focus our attention on getting rid of Obama. The prospect of four more years of this Marxist is reason enough to support Romney. He may not be perfect, but he's a lot better than his opponents would have you believe. And he has learned a lot from the primary campaign. And he has rightly focusing his attention more against Obama. We cannot survive four more years of the Marxist. Think about the courts, for one.

Errick S| 3.15.12 @ 1:13PM

There is no way in hell I would ever support Mitt Romney for anything. Mitt Romney is a moderate socialist. The choice between Obama and Mitt is the choice between Bud and Bud Light.

Seek| 3.15.12 @ 7:33PM

Okay, bartender. Make mine a Bud Light.

George Collins| 3.15.12 @ 10:01PM

I'll take one too, but I would prefer a Yeungling. All of you defeatist losers are probably "functionaires" for the Federal Government with a clock on your desk with the time ticking down to retirement, at my expense.

Jeffrey Wilens| 3.15.12 @ 1:20PM

The problem is that America is gradually becoming more and more Progressive. Your "conservative value" are losing their appeal. Americans have figured out the working class got screwed by and large the last 40 years while the 1% got richer. Tax cuts for the rich and vaginal ultrasounds for women "dumb" enough to get themsevles pregnant (because their stupid university imposed moral objections to birth control?), irrational rantings that making it easier to get medical coverage is somehow "taking away my liberty".....Yeah those are truly winning issues for the Republicans.

Tom| 3.15.12 @ 1:23PM

My gut says Santorum.
My brain says Romney.
We can't afford another 4 years of Obama.
I'm going with my brain.

The Bruce| 3.15.12 @ 4:18PM

Probably a good thing. Santorum's latest focus is now on banning Internet porn. That's right, Internet porn.

The economy's in the toilet, gas prices are soaring, the real unemployment rate keeps rising, but Rick's focused on what you're viewing on your computer.

And yet people scratch their heads and wonder how he got his ass handed to him in '06 by double-digits.

I think I'll start calling him the exorcist candidate.

Nick| 3.15.12 @ 6:08PM

Link please?

Sue| 3.15.12 @ 1:24PM

But, for Romney to win he would need those in the rural areas and less educated, and those who are passionate about the social issues.

I believe passion can win, and that is something Romney lacks.

tom| 3.15.12 @ 1:27PM

Wilens: :The problem is that America is gradually becoming more and more Progressive"

Yeah sure.. that is why for 3 years in a row, Gallup has found 40% of Amercians self identifying as 'conservatives' and only about 20% self indetifying as 'liberals".

That's why progressives were shellacked in 2010.

That's why Occupy Wall Street withered away.

Just another delusional liberal engaging in wishful thinking.

Jeffrey Wilens| 3.15.12 @ 2:33PM

Yet American IS becoming more progressive. Each generation accepts ideas you would call "liberal" more than the last. People may not even identify themself as "liberal" yet the actual ideas they espouse: progressive tax, worker rights, regulation of business, environmental protection, sexual freedom and all that entails are liberal. They just seem more mainstream. Looking at a particular election is not helpful, you have to look at trends. When the New Deal was enacted, conservatives claimed it woudl be the End of America, but it wasn't. When LBJ expanded many programs, again the End of America but it was not. Yes there are "couter-reformations" here and there but overall the trend is clear. If you want to talk about delusional, you should look at working people who continue to get the shaft from the rich, but somehow think one day that might be them or who get distracted by irrelevant social issues like birth control or gay rights into voting against their own interests.

I am increasingly confident Obama will win and win easily because the Republican party has withered to a hard core group of extremists so moderates will just have to "put up" with another 4 years of Obama. Probably for the best since the Republicans have no solutions to offer except irrational rhetoric about closet Muslims and losing their "freedom" to go bankrupt because of medical bills.

tom| 3.15.12 @ 1:31PM

"But, for Romney to win he would need those in the rural areas and less educated, and those who are passionate about the social issues."

If Romney is the nominee and you are passionate about social issues..you are going to stand by and do nothing ..and let Obama win?

Romney isn't perfect.. but no way is Obama better!

Don't know about you.. but i would crawl over glass to vote for either Romney or Santorum rather than let Obama win.. but the polls seem accurate to me..and they say Romney has a better chance to beat Obama in the general election than Santorum.

I'm not about to cut off my nose to spite my face.

Sue| 3.15.12 @ 2:01PM

That's your choice. I'm praying it won't come to that.

Minuteman78| 3.15.12 @ 1:42PM

"If the Democrats mess up the economy and produce $4.50 gas and 8.3 percent unemployment, they will swing Republican. That will probably decide the 2012 election."

What do you mean IF? Gas ain't going anywhere but up over the summer, and there ain't no jobs.

John| 3.15.12 @ 1:51PM

If you really believe that Romney can make $20 million and use every tax scheme available to the super rich to pay 15%, less than most working families, have 9 offshore bank accounts, and be putting a $20 million addition on one of his five homes, and still beat the Obama machine in November, you are truly delusional. Zero chance.

Thom| 3.15.12 @ 4:38PM

“tax scheme available to the super rich to pay 15%, less than most working families”

Not a shred of truth in this statement. I pay 14.7% of my income to Federal Income tax. The average for my income group (50,000 to 100,000) is little more than half that 15%. Married couples in that income range pay 45% less than I pay per dollar of income. Add a couple of ankle biters to the mix and you can take another 10% off what I pay per dollar of income. Below 50,000 the entire Federal income tax burden hardly touches 3% of the total tax paid and that represents about 66% of the tax payers. Taxing after tax money gains on investments like “income” will destroy incentives to invest. If Romney had a “job” his effective tax rate on that income would be closer to double the flat Capital Gains rate. Just because he can save and invest after tax money effectively and you apparently can’t doesn’t mean the rest of us want to join your envy group for misery therapy.

W| 3.15.12 @ 10:10PM

Romney paid the 15% capital gains tax rate which is the tax rate applicable to dividends and capital gains. There is no scheme or complicated tax plannine. You pay 15% as stated in the tax law. He donated 3 million to charity and paid 3 million in taxes from his income of 20 million. Would you prefer he was poor and did not pay 3 mil in taxes and donate 3 mil to charity? How much did you donate to charity? Typical angry lefty who is envious of success.

Jim Gigax| 3.15.12 @ 2:48PM

The fact that slick charlatans like Obama, and the fact that the ruinous welfare state/public employee racket that is choking the United States, are not the products of the Republican party is a plus long term. The fact that the United States is 50% lemming and that the U.S. will go the way of Greece simply means that the Republican "product" will be better accepted in the future.

ayrnieu| 3.15.12 @ 2:59PM

Read these comments and tell me that a prolonged primary helps the eventual nominee. This stuff is like stale war propaganda, like people wondering (decades after the liars put the claim to rest) why there'd been no war crimes trials for those Germans who'd tossed babies from bayonet to bayonet. Romney's running to the right of all of his opponents, who keep attacking him from the left, and has a less damning political history than Reagan had, but no, he's a 'moderate socialist'. And a flip-flopper, although not for any reason beyond some people remembering 2004 rhetoric much better than they remember all that was wretched and villainous about Kerry.

If a single 2004 (or 2000) Bush voter folds his arms and stays home in November, it won't be due to any deficiency of Romney vs. *Bush*, and it won't be due to that simply because Romney is better than Bush on absolutely everything. It'll be because so much of the right were so busy discussing the prospect of four more apocalyptic years of Obama with the delicacy and taste warranted by a drunken bout of "why is this baseball coach such a moron?"

On which: http://www.perl.com/pub/2000/12/advocacy.html

Neil| 3.15.12 @ 3:06PM

Nice thesis, credibly presented, probably persuasive to some. However, Obama wants Romney. Remeber 2008? This should be the Republican mantra in 2012 and beyond; You don't beat democrats by running democrat light." 'Nuf said.

jgo| 3.15.12 @ 3:13PM

Exactly when were the colors inverted? When did the reds become blue?

And why do so many conservatives and libertarians put up with this and the leftists' frequent redefinitions of words like "liberal" and "progress"?

Kingofthenet| 3.15.12 @ 5:14PM

I don't mind calling Conservatives, Regressives. Or that they want to 'Bring America Back...to the early 1800's'

Al Adab| 3.15.12 @ 6:22PM

Actually King,
One of the major Constitutional debates of the early 1800's was over what was then called internal improvements. The idea was for the national government to finance canals, roads, etc. lying within one state. Many, including Madison though it a good way to promote economic growth. Madison however, and he of all people should know, felt it necessitated a Constitutional amendment to permit it. Still, the temptation for what is now called pork projects was so great Congress just decided to ignaore the issue and started funding projects nonetheless.

So in one sense, yes, a reconsideration of issues from the 19th century may very well be in order.
Back then the money was gold coin too BTW.

the-family| 3.15.12 @ 3:26PM

Obama will win Florida handily, as every pronouncement from the right declares Social Security a fraud, failure and menace.
That's the Social Security 1/2 of all Florida voters require to survive.
Change your message...or perish.

gearjammer| 3.15.12 @ 4:14PM

Those of us about to retire know who ruined the system-democrats. The brainwashed Rossevelt era folks are few and far between. Non democrat herd members give AARP the finger every chance we get.

The Bruce| 3.15.12 @ 4:09PM

If the GOP candidate wins in November, I suggest he set up an "Office of the President Elect" if for no other reason than to demonstrate to Obama just how ridiculous he looked back in 2008.

Joe D.| 3.15.12 @ 4:30PM

I think you are wrong Mr. Tucker. I think PA, Michigan and NJ are all in play and could easily more red.

And based on today, I do not see any state on that map moving blue.

David| 3.15.12 @ 4:47PM

Yea right Mr. Tucker. We need one more RINO as the nominee like Dole, Bush senior, and McCain, and the repubs will be assured of a victory.

The problem is that none of our candidates are conservative enough, and YOU think the moderate/liberal Romney should be the nominee??? WOW!!!

Kingofthenet| 3.15.12 @ 5:05PM

THIS is so exciting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXtJhLUOFXE

Fiscal| 3.15.12 @ 5:13PM

The "election math" propagated by this article is of little consequence. Basically, elections are won on two factors -- the likeability of the candidate and the state of the economy. Obama wins the likeability contest against any candidate. Romney and Gingrich are ultimately unlikeable and that decreases their chances dramatically. Remember that the economy has grown almost every month Obama has been in office. If this stalls or decreases, Republicans have a chance. But if it doesn't, it may be a close election but they won't have a chance.

The other factor is demographics. Swing voters consist primarily of women, Hispanics, and seniors. Given what the Republican candidates have said about women and Hispanics, these growing segments will be difficult to get. If you notice, Romney is the only candidate who really supports Social Security and thus is the only one that can maintain the senior vote which has been reliably Republican.

You've seen huge Hispanic growth not only in California, Florida, and New York, but in Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois and Virginia. Bush received 45% of the Hispanic vote up from the 35% from earlier candidates. However, it is doubtful that Romney or anyone else will receive more than 30% of the Hispanic vote which will put all of the above states in play.

Kingofthenet| 3.15.12 @ 5:23PM

You Republicans don't have ANY idea of what your up against, the Hubris that you think you can run a fake 'used car salesman' against the MASTER is truely a sin of Pride.When Obama finally lays down the hammer, it's going to shake you to your very core.You are children playing checkers all the while The President is playing 3d Chess...Be afraid, be VERY afraid.

Nick| 3.15.12 @ 6:12PM

You must be one of the idiotic 20% who still thinks President Downgrade and his regime are doing a great job on the economy, eh KooK?

Frank Natoli| 3.15.12 @ 6:29PM

"By choosing Romney -- who seems 'not conservative enough' only when contrasted with these two"

Allow me to rephrase:

"By choosing Romney -- who seems conservative enough only when contrasted with Obama".

Lloyd| 3.15.12 @ 8:11PM

At last someone actually explains, instead of merely insists, that Mitt Romney is electable and why. I'm tired of being hectored by people in magazines like this who want me to vote their way but do it by insult or sneer. Thank you.

Kingofthenet| 3.15.12 @ 8:29PM

Obama is going to resign:

http://www.youtube.com/barackobama?x=live

David| 3.15.12 @ 9:39PM

Bruce, I agree, I havn't heard about the Internet porn from Santorum, but if he is in to all of this peripheral stuff, I am pissed. Thw liberal media keeps dragging hium into these subject areas and he needs to learn how to change the subject.

George Collins| 3.15.12 @ 10:03PM

Yes, DAid, the man lacks focus.

ansonheath| 3.15.12 @ 9:50PM

I think I get it. These very intelligent (difference makers) upscale government subsidized voters will vote for Romney because they believe that he will continue their upscale government subsidized lifestyle, while the rest of the country of unemployed, stupid, and ignorant boobs will continue to subsidize their upscale lives.
Makes sense to me.

W| 3.15.12 @ 10:13PM

Explain how you subsidize the so called upscale lives of the Romney voters?

ansonheath| 3.15.12 @ 11:30PM

Please read the article again and note that it addresses the 'difference makers' in the election, not all Romney voters. I copied this section from the article to highlight the point: "These newly successful people have become the pivotal bloc that swings the state between Republicans and Democrats. They are not committed to either party."
When you see the list of employers, they are largely direct government or indirectly government subsidized.
The point of my cynical comment was that those 'very intelligent difference makers' voting for Romney, expecting their gravy train to continue when the country is broke, are delusional. It can't continue. How intelligent is that?
It's only a question of time. It will take more than an efficiency expert to prevent this coming trainwreck.

W| 3.16.12 @ 7:19AM

Read your comment. You can't answer the question.

ansonheath| 3.16.12 @ 11:17AM

Please re-read the article. Is it reading comprehension perhaps? I repeat for the last time - the article is about THE DIFFERENCE MAKERS IN THE 3 KEY STATES as per author, and not all Romney voters. Then ask yourself: What is the source of income for most of those difference makers? It's in the article!! If that doesn't do it for you, I can't help any more. My comment was just cynicism based on what the author wrote. BYE!

POST American| 3.15.12 @ 10:23PM

"Notice AGAIN, as the REAL campaign
approaches ---the REAL issues 'disappear'."

Two weeks off from the 'uncanny' 'natural'
'disappearance' of Andrew Breitbart
---as 'SUB--Mitt ROME--knee' and
Rikki Tikki Tavistock 'TTT-Ricky Sanitarium'
are put forth as figures of 'OP'-position

-------------------BE VERY AWARE--------------------

IN this, the 11th hour of the CFR-Rockefeller
RED China handover, sellout, TREASON,
'DE--IN--DUST--realization' and FINAL
EUGENICS OP ---BE VERY AWARE.

AS we consider the 'RA'--dick--CULL--ism'
of former Kissinger aide, 'BAR--Rockefeller'
H. Obama

-----BE VERY, VERY, VERY AWARE.

Otherwise you yourself will soon find your self
denuded of even your most cherished rectum 'bennies'.

No matter who wins in this FAKE election
--you will 'SUB--Mitt' to the 'ROME-knee'
---UNTO DEATH
---------------------and INTO HELL
-----------------------------------FOREVER.

-AMEN-

Bob| 3.15.12 @ 10:44PM

Chances are good that Obama loses Minnesota, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania along with all of the others. Heck, Obama could lose California, Oregon and Washington too, maybe Michigan and New Jersey. What does that leave him? I'll tell you what that leaves Obama...86 electoral votes. The question is, why would anyone vote for 4 more years of this and people will be asking themselves that question because it won't be 4 more years as good as the four past years, it will be 4 more years worse than the past 4 since Obama's action is all to destroy the liberty that makes this country great.

POST American| 3.15.12 @ 11:00PM

-----------------BOTTOMLESS LINE-------------------

"The New World Order needed
a makeover ---a race makeover.
Barack Obama ---IS the KEY.'

FULLY expecting 'BAR--Rockefeller'
H. Obama being returned to office
in what may very well prove to be
out LAST election.

Further,

expecting full blown, boots
to the ground, Globalist 'managed'
and capitalized, RED Chinese receivership
well before the decade is out.

YOU WERE WARNED ---TIRELESSLY.

-----------------YOU DID NOTHING-------------------

prsmith| 3.15.12 @ 11:48PM

William, William, William. When will you learn, William, that Marco Rubio is not eligible to be either potus or veep? Rubio's parents were not U.S. citizens when he was born so he is not a natural born citizen. Please stop making us look like hypocrites.

Rich Rostrom| 3.16.12 @ 1:01AM

prsmith: Where does it say that in the Constiution? It doesn't.

Chester Alan Arthur's father was not a citizen when he was born. Yet he was President. Charles Evans Hughes' parents were not citizens when he was born. Yet he was nominated for President.

Victoria DeLacy| 3.16.12 @ 8:31AM

It is people like you who squeezed out Mike Huckabee in '08 in preference of RINO McCain which gave Obama his first term to begin the dismantling of the greatest nation on earth. Over 90 conservative leaders from across America turned out to support Santorum at CPAC in addition to Rush Limbaugh and Dr. James Dobson who endorsed him the following week. I will throw my support behind him along with the best conservative leaders in the country by saying it's Rick Santorum for President to win in 2013!

Minuteman78| 3.16.12 @ 9:40AM

There's 8 battleground states - all that went for OBummer by a margin of less than 10%: CO, FL, IN, IA, NH, NC, OH, and VA. That's 105 EVs, moving the bar from 179 to 284, a margin of 14. But that's only 1.2M votes of his overall 10M vote margin. Means 7/8 of OMarxist's margin in 2008 doesn't mean much.

As far as the Convention being here (CLT), I've already heard numerous people calling in to talk shows saying while they normally operate concessions at the sports places, they are being shut out of the DNC because OCommie is pandering to the Unions and bringing in that kind of help from out of state. Not going to score many points with the locals that way.

Al Neuman| 3.16.12 @ 2:07PM

Of course Tucker nails it. Any one with even half a brain realizes that Romney is by far the best candidate to defeat Obama, by appealing to the great wash of undecided moderates.

Whether the right-wingers in the GOP think he's "conservative enough" or not, supporting any other potential Republican candidate will the same as voting for Obama!

Robert| 3.16.12 @ 2:44PM

"They are passionate about abortion and social issues and want to restore religion to the center of American life."

No, we want the Federal government to quit undermining the family and attacking people of faith. The secularists are the ones on the march, not us.

Nate| 3.16.12 @ 3:27PM

Clearly a piece written to inflate Mitt Romney's electability. This is garbage and wreaks of RINO desperation. You stupid...stupid...establishment folk made the mistake of picking for Conservatives a LIBERAL and tried cramming MR down our throats, and its not working.

When Republicans lose in November because they backstabbed Sarah Palin, and the Tea party after 2010...they went back into their old dinosaur ways and picked MCLAME 2.0

A defeat in November to Obama will be on the RINO ESTABLISHMENT.

Todd Powers| 3.17.12 @ 2:21AM

I've read Tucker's articles before: he is a vicious, mean-spirited establishment hack.

Romney is using attack ads on his own base!!! Maybe that explains the enthusiasm gap.

Todd Powers| 3.17.12 @ 2:21AM

I've read Tucker's articles before: he is a vicious, mean-spirited establishment hack.

Romney is using attack ads on his own base!!! Maybe that explains the enthusiasm gap.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.17.12 @ 8:26AM

Like I said.

personal trainer in brooklyn | 3.18.12 @ 7:37AM

The electoral college is the biggest farce. The individual votes of 47 total states have no relevance anymore if your analysis is correct, and it very well could be, because that's always how it is and will be until the electoral college is abolished and the president is elected by direct popular vote.

Yorzhik| 3.19.12 @ 10:28AM

While the math is correct, both Obama and Romney will continue to bankrupt the country. The only difference is that Obama will do it faster. The question is really, how do we rebuild after the fall? The answer is: better to have it happen quickly while we still have a little strength to rebuild.

Latest Headlines

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|96 comments

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord|98 comments

Obama’s Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield|55 comments

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut|24 comments

The Woman Who Wrote Liberty Valance

Bill Croke|29 comments

Not Super, But Pretty Good

Aaron Goldstein|17 comments

The Loss of Trust

Thomas Sowell|32 comments

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin|88 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Thoughts on New U.S.-Taliban Peace Talks

Aaron Goldstein | 6:34PM

Thank You, Bobby Jindal

Matt Purple | 6:01PM

Buzzfeed Faces $3.6 Million Lawsuit for Copyright Infringement

Kaylin Bugos | 4:55PM

Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder

Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM

Pro-Life is Smart Politics

Rich Lizardo | 4:01PM

Gerson, Wehner, and the Losing Old Ways Crowd

Jeffrey Lord | 2:46PM

Are Young People Souring on Obama?

Matt Purple | 2:24PM

Boehner to Enforce Hastert Rule with Immigration Reform

Jordan Gonzalez | 1:10PM

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

The American Spectator

Political Hay

Election Year Math

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (242) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.15.12 @ 6:26AM

Redatheart| 3.15.12 @ 10:26AM

Slacker| 3.15.12 @ 12:29PM

Bobloblaw| 3.15.12 @ 6:58PM

AVCurmudgeon| 3.15.12 @ 12:53PM

PCC| 3.16.12 @ 11:10AM

Dai Alanye | 3.15.12 @ 11:02AM

runningdeer| 3.15.12 @ 10:31PM

JJ| 3.15.12 @ 12:16PM

Cato| 3.15.12 @ 3:31PM

Thom| 3.15.12 @ 4:54PM

Thom| 3.15.12 @ 5:25PM

JJ| 3.16.12 @ 12:01AM

Thom| 3.15.12 @ 4:53PM

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.17.12 @ 8:25AM

Jack in Wi.| 3.15.12 @ 6:32AM

NVA Patriot| 3.15.12 @ 7:10AM

L. Ross| 3.15.12 @ 7:34AM

JJ| 3.15.12 @ 12:18PM

Clint| 3.15.12 @ 8:33AM

Frank Drackman| 3.15.12 @ 10:50AM

Clint| 3.15.12 @ 7:52PM

Michael Z. Williamson | 3.15.12 @ 12:22PM

George Collins| 3.15.12 @ 12:47PM

Boar Hunter| 3.15.12 @ 1:21PM

Appleby| 3.15.12 @ 6:38AM

gearjammer| 3.15.12 @ 8:10AM

Teflon93| 3.15.12 @ 8:46AM

gearjammer| 3.15.12 @ 9:18AM

TL| 3.15.12 @ 9:52AM

JJ| 3.15.12 @ 12:19PM

Michael Z. Williamson | 3.15.12 @ 12:23PM

gearjammer| 3.15.12 @ 4:08PM

Seek| 3.15.12 @ 7:24PM

Shamus| 3.15.12 @ 9:50AM

AVCurmudgeon| 3.15.12 @ 1:06PM

Quartermaster| 3.15.12 @ 8:36PM

George Collins| 3.15.12 @ 9:41PM

Bobloblaw| 3.15.12 @ 6:59PM

Quartermaster| 3.15.12 @ 8:39PM

RobertS| 3.15.12 @ 6:43AM

JJ| 3.15.12 @ 12:20PM

Cpl. Punishment| 3.15.12 @ 3:31PM

JJ| 3.16.12 @ 12:02AM

Harm| 3.16.12 @ 5:13PM

Matt | 3.15.12 @ 1:56PM

RobertS| 3.15.12 @ 6:47AM

NVA Patriot| 3.15.12 @ 7:12AM

gearjammer| 3.15.12 @ 8:13AM

George Collins| 3.15.12 @ 6:40PM

NVA Patriot| 3.15.12 @ 7:05AM

Renaissance Nerd | 3.15.12 @ 2:02PM

NVA Patriot| 3.15.12 @ 3:45PM

Al Adab| 3.15.12 @ 5:06PM

George Collins| 3.15.12 @ 9:42PM

Brian M| 3.15.12 @ 4:54PM

Drake| 3.15.12 @ 7:09AM

Frank Drackman| 3.15.12 @ 7:09AM

Clint| 3.15.12 @ 8:03AM

Frank Drackman| 3.15.12 @ 10:50AM

Clint| 3.15.12 @ 7:54PM

SUBVET| 3.15.12 @ 8:14PM

Clint| 3.15.12 @ 9:19PM

Vox populi| 3.15.12 @ 7:18AM

Appleby| 3.15.12 @ 7:22AM

PattyMor| 3.15.12 @ 7:33AM

Michael Z. Williamson | 3.15.12 @ 12:24PM

NVA Patriot| 3.15.12 @ 3:49PM

George Collins| 3.15.12 @ 9:47PM

The American Hitman| 3.15.12 @ 7:49AM

Dick Nome| 3.15.12 @ 8:58AM

L. Ross| 3.15.12 @ 8:00AM

Bill| 3.15.12 @ 8:22AM

Dmac | 3.15.12 @ 11:17AM

Bill| 3.15.12 @ 12:44PM