Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

This kind of illustrates the point I've been making, its a cool interactive map of the electoral votes (the only thing that matters) by state. I've said demographics basically make Obama a shoe in, and this supports it.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/yaho ... tlook.html

For those too lazy to click it shows based on how states will go historically(i.e. the predictable red or blue states), Obama starts with 247 votes, Romney with 191. The magic number to win is 270.

There are eight swing states this year (VA is one of them), with a total of 100 votes for grabs.

The most populous states are all blue, the less populous states are red, hence the large discrepancy right off the bat....and what I based my demographics claim on.

Really in order to win Obama needs to pick up just about a fifth (23 out of 100) of the swing electoral votes, which is pretty likely to happen given his massive (historical actually) reelection fund.

ratherfish in 3... 2... 1...

Mr Obama we're not stupid.

Romney’s bright electoral landscape
Posted by POTUS NEWS NET on April 16th, 2012
The electoral map reveals how perilous is President Obama’s grip on the White House. Let’s start, as RealClearPolitics does, with a base of 170 electoral votes for Mitt Romney. It’s hard to imagine that Obama could win any of even the less-red states that comprise that batch (e.g. Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina, Montana). To get 100 more and seize the presidency, Romney only needs some states that routinely went Republican before the 2008 race (Nevada, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia) and needs to hold on to a few that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) managed to win (Arizona, Missouri). This gets Romney to 273.

In other words, Romney doesn’t need to win (but he might) in New Hampshire or New Mexico. He would love to, but isn’t required to, break through in states like Pennsylvania, Iowa, Wisconsin or Michigan. (The first and last would seem the most likely.)

It may come as a shock to liberals when you break it down by the only measure that matters (electoral votes), but Romney can do worse that George W. Bush did in 2004 (when he won Iowa and New Mexico) and still win the White House.

This doesn’t mean Romney will have an easy time of it, but it does suggest that Romney doesn’t need to twist and turn on policy, or throw the longball for VP to win the race. If he runs better than McCain and worse than Bush, then he’s very likely to win.

Of the states critical to Romney, it is not hard to see how important Ohio, Florida and Virginia are to his prospects. These states have a cumulative total of 60 electoral votes. Romney won all three in the primaries, and each has large urban and/or suburban areas of the type Romney has won all across the country. All three states have GOP governors. In 2010, Ohio and Florida each elected a conservative senator in part due to a backlash against Obama.


All of this leads us to a couple conclusions. First, a popular VP pick from one of them would be a smart thing indeed. Jeb Bush, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Virginia’s Gov. Bob McDonnell would qualify and please the base without turning off swing voters.

Second, if you think of some of the issues that matter in these states (trade, Cuba policy, jobs) Romney is well positioned. Virginia (in part from government-related hiring in Northern Virginia) is the only one of the three with unemployment below 7 percent. Florida’s is over 9 percent. Romney need not rethink or restyle his agenda, nor (as liberals keep arguing) move “to the center.” He simply has to communicate over and over again why his middle-of-the-road Republican policies and his background in the private sector would be better for those states and the country.

Republicans should be relieved, but not cocky, about the electoral landscape. The states most at risk will very likely be close. But Democrats’ confidence at this point seems unwarranted. It is very easy to spot Romney’s path to 270 electoral votes.

Article source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/rig ... _blog.html

Take it away, Adam Sandler

Futility is not a good excuse for not countering a MSM/progressive lie.

There is a lot of validity to Kreutz's point, but I looked at the chart and and in my non-scientific analysis find some flaws with certain states, VA would be Republican leaning, look for the last time VA went Democratic in the presidential election. North Carolina would lean the same way. That would be 28 more in the Romney column up to 219 VS 247. I also thought PA would be a battleground state, but I looked at: http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/nati ... ?year=2000
(Just change the year in the URL to see the results) and saw that it hasn't voted for the GOP candidate since George Bush senior's 1988 election. So my thoughts there would have been incorrect.

I would argue that Romney would need to win Massachusetts and it's 11 electoral votes, because he was governor there. The last candidate to loose his home state was Gore and the sad reality for him it wasn't Florida that cost him the election, like the main stream media spins it (any state changing no matter how small would have won it), it was that he couldn't even carry Tennessee. If Romney did that the score would be Romney 230 to Obama 236. In my book that is what you could call close. I think it'll come down to which way Florida and Ohio fall. If somebody win them both and their 49 electoral votes, they'll be President.

Good call.

My post was to address the latest MSM spin on the inevitability of a B HO win.

If conservatives don't vote, Barackus Obamus will be a two termer.

grumpyMSG wrote:There is a lot of validity to Kreutz's point, but I looked at the chart and and in my non-scientific analysis find some flaws with certain states, VA would be Republican leaning, look for the last time VA went Democratic in the presidential election. North Carolina would lean the same way. That would be 28 more in the Romney column up to 219 VS 247. I also thought PA would be a battleground state, but I looked at: http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/nati ... ?year=2000
(Just change the year in the URL to see the results) and saw that it hasn't voted for the GOP candidate since George Bush senior's 1988 election. So my thoughts there would have been incorrect.

I would argue that Romney would need to win Massachusetts and it's 11 electoral votes, because he was governor there. The last candidate to loose his home state was Gore and the sad reality for him it wasn't Florida that cost him the election, like the main stream media spins it (any state changing no matter how small would have won it), it was that he couldn't even carry Tennessee. If Romney did that the score would be Romney 230 to Obama 236. In my book that is what you could call close. I think it'll come down to which way Florida and Ohio fall. If somebody win them both and their 49 electoral votes, they'll be President.

Its my understanding the real population base (and thus the electoral votes) in VA is NoVA, and it leans democratic, is this correct or incorrect?

You're probably right on Florida being the deciding state...again. Yay.

Kreutz wrote: Its my understanding the real population base (and thus the electoral votes) in VA is NoVA, and it leans democratic, is this correct or incorrect?

You're probably right on Florida being the deciding state...again. Yay.

http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/prin ... 0&imgH=452 will show you VA's congressional districts.
1 is represented by Wittman (R)
2 is represented by Rigell (R)
3 is represented by Scott (D)
4 is represented by Forbes (R)
5 is represented by Hurt (R)
6 is represented by Goodlatte (R)
7 is represented by Cantor (R)
8 is represented by Moran (D)
9 is represented by Griffith (R)
10 is represented by Wolf (R)
11 is represented by Connolly (D)
That info is from: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/VA
The box score: 8 republicans, 3 democrats

We also have 2 democrats for senators, which are statewide elections, Webb is quitting this year and former Governor Warner. What that shows me is more people in VA look at the candidates and vote for the best person, or against the worst and do not necessarily vote purely on party loyalty. In other words VA has fewer zombies than say NY or CA. If the parties Senate race leaders become the nominees, it will be former Governor Allen against former Governor Kaine for the Webb seat. Both have baggage. Allen lost the race to Webb, after serving one term in the Senate, 2001-2007. Kaine went on to be the DNC Chairman from 2009-2011, so he was in that role during the historic swing of the House of Representatives to the republicans.

In the Virginia's legislature, Republicans hold a clear margin in the House and the State Senate is even at 20-20.

As for Northern VA's influence, by my best guesstimate it contains the 8th and 11th district completely and have small piece of each of 1st, 7th and 10th. So at best with some skillful gerrymandering you could end up with about 4 Northern VA districts out of 11. If you really want to come up with a generalization for VA, it would probably be: the more dense the population, the more likely it is to lean democratic. What probably skews that here in VA is the military presence in the VA Beach area. Unlike the mainstream media reports, the military remains more likely to vote republican than democrat. That is why dems try their best to disenfranchise them as much as possible.

You're probably right on Florida being the deciding state...again.

Florida of the hanging chads and numerous voting irregularities

It may be decided by black panthers in uniform with night sticks...

Seems they are acceptable democrap poll workers now.

So if Rombama wins what will change?

grumpyMSG wrote: If you really want to come up with a generalization for VA, it would probably be: the more dense the population, the more likely it is to lean democratic.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

True. But there are several less populated areas that tend toward democratic candidates. Southwest Virginia has traditionally been strongly democratic, but Obama's decimation of the coal and gas industries there has changed that with respect to Obama, at least. Even to the point that previously untouchable democratic US Representative Rich Boucher got beat last election. The other big exception to that as I see it is that there are a lot of fairly small college towns in Virginia (Charlottesville, Blacksburg, Lexington, Williamsburg, etc), and both the students and the faculty (never having had a real job and actually worked for a living) tend to be democrat/liberal electoral zombies.

Roverhound wrote:So if Rombama wins what will change?

Conservatives can pat themselves on the back for saving America from the white version of the Democrat they beat?

Kreutz wrote:

Roverhound wrote:So if Rombama wins what will change?

Conservatives can pat themselves on the back for saving America from the white version of the Democrat they beat?

Eggsactly!

History repeats itself...enjoy Obama Part 2



But in the end it doesn't matter anyway, right Gene?

Lie to yourselves if you wish.


Us conservatives are going to VOTE because we have the brains to know the difference.


Obama has proved that an empty orange juice can would be a better president by his record. He's the least qualified to lead in any room he walks into.

Now you're being funny. Romney is not a conservative.

Roverhound wrote:Now you're being funny. Romney is not a conservative.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

No, you're being UNfunny. Compared to Obama, Teddy freakin' Kennedy was a conservative!