Fishin' For Electoral Votes in '08

By pilgrim Posted in Comments (41) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Governor Tim Pawlenty should be the Vice President on the '08 GOP ticket, and here is how I got there.

1. Tim Pawlenty is always a winner when he campaigns for an office.
2. Tim Pawlenty governs and eliminates budget deficits without raising taxes.
3. Tim Pawlenty is right on the immigration issue, and this propelled him to win in 2006. Gov. Tim Pawlenty started running an ad that criticizes his opponents on the issue of immigration. The ad blasts the Independence Party's Peter Hutchinson for supporting a plan that would allow people who are in the country illegally to pay in-state college tuition rates, which are lower. The ad also rips DFLer Mike Hatch for not taking a stand on the issue.

Fortunately, our governor is Tim Pawlenty. Under Governor Pawlenty, in state tuition for illegal immigrants will not happen.

4. The GOP Convention is in Minnesota, and the enthusiasm coming out of there with Pawlenty on the ticket will be huge.
5. Tim Pawlenty could get 10 electoral votes for the GOP that went to the Dems in '04. Perhaps more if his being on the ticket brings over the electoral votes of Wisconsin. In '04 the score was 286-252 so a 20 point swing can be very big.

Especially since the Taft implosion in Ohio has made being a Republican so toxic there that we are probably an underdog to keep those 20 EVs.

...the Ohio voters took their wrath out on state Republicans like Ken Blackwell and some state reps that were tied to Bob Taft. I don't foresee the Dems having a huge advantage there because of that. I'm not saying it will be an easy win, but I still think the buckeye state leans GOP.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

Anybody that wants more government operations will not go over well in Ohio. Small government will be more to their liking.

Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

Bush won Ohio by 4% in 2004 and 6% in 2000.

Mid-term elections tell us very, very little about the following presidential election.

If you don't believe that, please review the election results of 1994, 1996, 1998, and 2000.

Sure, we lost the governorship and the Senate seat in Ohio in 2006. But the Dems lost many seats in 1994 in states that Clinton was able to carry easily in 1996.

Dems picked up a Senate seat in NC in 1998, only to see that state go for Bush in a big way 2 years later.

They lost a Senate seat in Minnesota in 2002 only to see Kerry win the state two years later.

Give me an example of a mid-term election where the results affected the following presidential election .

Romney/Barbour 2008

Is he well regarded by the people of Minnesota? How strong is he fiscally? Socially? Bordery?

From what I've seen, he looks like a good prospect for VP.

I'd love to see someone from that part of the woods be nominated for President... even though the people of MN (at least in the cities are VERY liberal, irrationally so).

I'd also like to see Michael Steele be in government.

I think it would be truly amazing, to have our entire cabinet pretty much picked out near election time, so we can see just how much more competent a "Republican President's Cabinet" would be over a Democratic one.

Bush did some of that with Condi and Powell, and once the nominee is decided, I think it would be a great idea. I would like to see some of the current candidates who are not the nominee to be part of the cabinate. I doubt McCain would take it, since he has more power in the senate.
Give me juicy, Red meat

IMO he is a fiscal conservative law & order kind of man.

Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

Of all blue states, Michigan is our best hope for a flip. Dems have turned a bunch of states purple, while their blue states remain solidly blue. I also like Romney because I think the Rust belt may be sick of the Southern dominance in Prez politics and the Romney name may bear fruit in Michigan.

I also think he can also put Massachusetts into play. Even if he didn't win there, he could force the Democrat to spend money there. After all, he did win a general election there to be the Governor.
Give me juicy, Red meat

but he personally has admitted that he's a different person after winning that election.

I'm not sure he could have won re-election in Massachusetts. I just think he's more conservative than even 45% of the population there want.

But I'd love for EVERY state to be in play.

The subject matter is the Veep on the ticket. Does Pawlenty make a good choice? Does the Veep choice matter? Is where the Veep is from matter? capiche?

Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

I was responding to the previous post, should have read the rest.
Give me juicy, Red meat

Massachusetts would be as in play as NY with Rudy as the nominee - meaning not even enough to warrant much concern.

Going back to 1960, only Reagan won MA: by 4,000 votes in 1980, and only 51-48 in the landslide of 1984. Even Nixon couldn't win there in '72. Dukakis (a weak candidate even if he was from there) won 53-45. Clinton in '92 won 48-29-23. In '96 he polled over 60%. Gore was at 59.8%, Kerry at 61%. In the last 4 elections our best showing was in '04 when Bush got a whopping 36.78%.

Bush was uniquely suited to annoy MA. Other candidates change things. Like McCain v. Obama where McCain has lead for 4 months in head-to-head polls.

Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Bush might have been an anomaly. That, of course doesn't explain why MA joined only DC in voting for McGovern. But for all that anomaly, McCain is equally as anomalous on the other side. I don't know the why - though I certainly appreciate it.

But to support my point on Romney and "in play" that same Survey USA poll you link found Romney trailing Clinton in MA by 24 points and Obama by 17. That's not "in play" that's a blowout.

Romney would do better than any other GOP nominee in MA without a doubt - and I seriously doubt he would crack 40%.

To suggest MA is "in play" for the GOP is to suggest OK is "in-play" for the Dems. MA is off-the-board for the GOP for a generation, at least.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Romney actually is not the best performer in MA. McCain is. Romney pulls 35% vs. Clinton. Rudy gets 40, McCain 45.
Against Obama Romney is down 54-37. Rudy is down 46-44, McCain is up 47-44.
Thompson wasn't polled. Huck is weaker than Mitt against both.

Rs are behind right now, but McCain and Romney are doing the best. They are behind Clinton by 7. Giuliani by 9. The others by "no chance."

Romney's dad was Governor and that has to help some, but not a lot. McCain did well there in 2000 and may again this year. He seems to be a good fit for some reason.

And any state that went 51/48 has to be on the shortlist to try for.

Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Do you agree with me that the midwest is where the GOP needs to especially campaign hard to fish for electoral votes?

Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

IMHO, strategy has to follow the matchup. Since we will have 7-9 months of general campaign we can put off general campaign strategy until then.

I have been calling the Upper Midwest the "Swing Region" for national politics. MI, WI, OH, IN, MN (and MO depending on geography) could all go either way with only IL really isn't in play. I think Gov Pawlenty is a rising star and he was on my shortlist for President with Gov Sanford (SC) and Bush (FL). He would be a fantastic VP pick. He endorsed McCain, so a McCain/Pawlenty ticket is definitely possible.

I think that ticket would be right to focus on the upper midwest states. The less partisan "Minnesota nice" of that ticket would do well. I don't know how a Rudy or Huckabee would play. Rudy would probably pay more attention to NJ and PA but perhaps MI as well.

I also can't really say if Hillary or Obama does better in the area.

If I were in charge of the RNC strategy wing, I would put a few full time people in the upper midwest to help recruit and get more statewide offices into R hands. A bench of future SEN and GOV candidates needs to be set up. Right now WI, MI, and IL are 2D SEN. IN, OH, and MN are 1-1. So it's 9D / 3R right now. If this is a swing region, Rs are losing.

Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

I am with you 100% on the last paragraph.

It's sort of what Dean promised the Dems in 2005 when he became their Screamer-in-Chief.

We did good in the 80s and 90s building ground up, but we have no lost some of that advantage in elected office. We seriously need to win back local offices.

I'd like to see at least one rising star in each geographic area.

We have Jindal in Louisiana. We have Pawlenty in Minnesota. We may have Rossi in Washington. It'd be great if we could get Michael Steele elected the governor or senator of Maryland.

Get back Virginia. Get back Ohio, etc.

We need to have people in the pipeline.

On a sidenote, I'd like to put Newt's brain in another body so that his polarizing personality can be put to rest and we can use his brain all the time.

Dems have turned many solidly Red states purple. The Republicans must pick off some Blue states to complete. Our new hope has to be the upper midwest. Plus, Michigan Dems are tanking big time. 2004 Prez results :

Minn -3
Mich -3
Wisc -1

Maybe he can. But history is not kind. Many aren't picked to win new states, and the ones that may be picked for that reason have been less than successful.

2004 - Edwards: NC went for Bush by an almost identical margin as it had in 2000.
2000 - Cheney and Lieberman: were either WY or CT ever in doubt?
1996 - Kemp: NY was never in play - Dole actually polled worse than Bush had in '92 (and Perot's '96 vote there was half what it had been in '92).
1992 - Gore: Success. Maybe. Clinton might have won TN anyway.
1988 - Quayle: IN voted for FDR in 1932, 1936, LBJ in '64 - Republican every other year going back to 1916.
1988 - Bentsen: TX was Bush's nominal home state and he won it with an almost identical percentage as Reagan had in 1980.
1984 - Ferraro: Well, put it this way, Mondale only managed to win his OWN home state by 7,000 votes.
1980 - Bush: picked not for the EVs but to make peace with the Rockefellerites after the primary season and the aborted attempt to bring Ford onboard.

So it's been a while. I probably could have gone on but you get the point.

Now, for all that Michigan might hate Southern dominance - we are a party that needs the south to stay with us. That means that for the foreseeable future there will probably be at least 1 southerner on the ticket each cycle (the last successful GOP ticket without a southerner was Nixon-Agnew in 1972. And yes I counted Bush as from Texas - Reagan was a cowboy at heart anyway). So Pawlenty is not going to get a call from Romney or Rudy. McCain might also be out.

Fred is probably the most likely fit for Pawlenty. Fred will be helped by a governor, already has the southern thing, and I don't think needs any buttressing in the way of foreign policy or gravitas by way of the VP.

Huckabee is already a governor, has the southern angle. Probably could use some foreign affairs/gravitas help, and would also probably like a someone folks know. Pawlenty doesn't help him in his weak areas save for fiscal policy - but that help could be dampened by the fact that even many Republicans don't know Pawlenty's record. So the ticket would have to spend time educating its own people. Huck would be better picking someone known for fiscal conservatism already. Pawlenty also suffers from the same deficit - the lack of foreign policy/defense credentials that many governors face.

Another Governor on the ticket would not be so great for Mitt and Mike since they already bring that credential with them. The other 3 running could use the help on the ticket by having someone who is a Governor. I am not sure I buy the necessity of having to have a southerner on the ticket. I don't think the South will go to the Dems any time soon. When I started working on this blog I divided the US into 5 regions of electoral votes by state. The south and mountain/high plains states were all GOP. The Northeast and far west (except AK) were all DEM. The only part of the country that seems evenly divided is the midwest. May I'm mistaken, but I think this is important.

Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

If we look like we're nominating a Giuliani/Pawlenty ticket you can bet that Edwards shoots up on the Democrat side VP list. So do the number of southern governors they have. Kaine in VA, Bredesen in TN, Easley in NC, Beebe in AR.

I don't think the south will defect en masse. But in the current environment we really need to keep it solid. Would an all northerner ticket win there? Yes. But just as we're talking about having the Dems spend money in blue states like NJ or MI, we'd be spending money to try to keep the Dems from picking off AR or LA or maybe VA. We already have a bunch of close states to keep in our column (IA, NM, OH, NV), we don't need to be fending off the Dems in our heartland because we ignored them on the ticket.

It was not on purpose, but I think that subconsciously I was thinking about Fred at the top of the ticket when I put this together. The last election was a bad one for the GOP, and I had to look for a while to find a GOP winner in the upper midwest. Here in Indiana we lost 3 reps. to the Ds. So now ya caught me as to why I did not address protecting the solid south base in my blog.

Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

Gubernatorial experience would probably be good for Rudy and McCain. But look for both of them to eye Gov. Sanford in SC first. McCain has a history with Sanford going back to 2000. Rudy would probably look south rather than west. Sanford also had a solid anti-abortion record in the House. And I haven't heard anything to indicate that he has backed off that position as Governor.

gubernatorial experience for Huckabee?


Not trying to goad anyone.

I will give Huckabee this... he is good at what he does, and that's sell himself.

He should be the nominee. That not the case, I guess we'll be best served if he's the VP candidate.

Walk on, walk on, with hope in your heart. And you'll never walk alone. You'll never walk alone.

"But one fourth of the population is retarded." - GWB, on South Park

He is a great choice. Problem is that Republicans haven't picked a decent vice presidential candidate since Eisenhower. At least not if you consider two reasons for the choice being 1. Ability to be President and 2. Helping somewhere on the electoral map.

Nixon-Lodge (Maybe one out of two)

Goldwater-Miller (unknown congressman probably fails both tests)

Nixon-Agnew (Maybe Maryland pickup but probably would have won there anyway. This one I am no sure.

Ford-Dole First pick was Nelson Rockefeller. For the election he chose Dole. Glad he helped carry Kansas.

Reagan-Bush Luckily Reagan didn't need a boost anywhere. He wouldn't have gotten one.

Bush-Quayle That Indiana vote sure helped.

Dole-Kemp This may be the exception.

Bush-Cheyney Good VP. But Wyoming is safe for Republicans. Gov Ridge would have tipped the balance in Pennsylvania.

Maybe eventually they will learn.

Just read an earlier post that was very good. Kemp wasn't a good choice. He would have probably been a better nominee. The point is, you can't pick up electoral votes with VP nominees like these anyway. The Minnesota Gov might be able to do it, depending on the nominee.

If it's Romney, it's a good pick. Romney would run a ntional campaign on competence and innovation. Pawlenty fits well as a fellow executive.

If it's McCain, it's a good pick. It gives him geographical balance and could fit well with the pork-busting theme.

He also works for Fred for similar reasons as above.

If it's Rudy, I had thought Fred was the obvious choice. If Fred does really poorly though and quits early, that doesn't look so good. Then Pawlenty looks pretty good, though Rudy might need a stronger connection with social conservatives. If so, Sanford rises as does Kyl. My dark horse on that front would be Ashcroft.

Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)

©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service