Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 41

Thread: Yarmuth says a Bachmann nomination gives Obama a 50 state sweep in 2012.

  1. #1
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    27,485
    Thanks
    5145

    From
    N/A

    Yarmuth says a Bachmann nomination gives Obama a 50 state sweep in 2012.

    ABC is reporting following comments from John Yarmuth (D-KY-03). Since the article is so short, I am quoting in in its entirety. Please read my comments before debating:

    "Democratic Rep. John Yarmuth is rooting for Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann to win the GOP presidential nomination.

    On ABC’s “Top Line” today, Yarmuth, D-Ky., said he thinks the Republican Party “is much too sensible” to hand the nomination to Bachmann, R-Minn., a tea party favorite who’s quickly positioned herself in the top tier of presidential contenders.

    But if Bachmann does win, Yarmuth asserted, expect President Obama to be reelected in an unprecedented landslide."

    -Video-

    “Michele Bachmann is not equipped to be president of the United States. She is totally out of the mainstream. Her ideas are extremely radical and reckless,” Yarmuth told us.

    “Just saying that she's not going to vote against the debt ceiling under any circumstances indicates to me she's obviously not equipped to be president of the United States. She would bring this economy to its knees, just for some philosophical ideology that she has. But that's the way she is.”

    “She's a very talented marketer. She knows her assets and she markets them well. But if she were fully exposed to the scrutiny of a presidential campaign, I'm very confident President Obama would win all 50 states.”

    Yarmuth made similar comments about the impact of a Bachmann candidacy last week in an interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal."


    -------------------------------------------------


    First, I disagree with Yarmuth about a 50 state win. Barring a catastrophe of yet unseen unbelievable dimensions, I believe it is pretty much impossible for one party to score a 50 state win. Only three times in our history has one candidate won all but two "states" (or electoral entities): FDR in 1936, Nixon in 1972 and Reagan in 1984. The polarization in our Union pretty much shuts out a 50 (actually, a 51) state sweep.


    That being said, what I think is critical is WHERE Yarmuth is speaking from. He won in KY-03 in 2006, narrowly unseating incumbent Anne Northrup. KY-03 is a definite swing-district in Kentucky, chock full of conservative democratic voters plus republican voters. First time winners tend to win narrow wins there and then are rewarded by their constituency for re-election. Yarmuth would not be saying this stuff if he was not absolutely sure that his constituency might also be scratching it's head about a possible Bachmann nomination.


    On PF and other forums I took time to note when politicians said things over the top, and noted often the districts that they came from, i.e., King (IA) has often lobbed so many bombs, I have stopped counting, but he comes from a rock-solid GOP district, he can afford to say many of these silly things.


    Yarmuth, on the other hand, does not come from the rock solid DEM district. This is what I think makes his claims all the more interesting. He should have something to lose for this, but apparently he believes that his constituency probably feels much as he does. Time will tell us if his assessment was correct.



    IMO, the point he is trying to make is that Bachmann is so far right of right that it is very hard to imagine her capturing enough of the center nationally to win. Plus, her very outspoken views on gays reflects a real tunnel vision view of the world, which I don't think will play well. With the GOP reducing itself down to the hard core conservatives, she could actually pull off the nomination, but does anyone here think she can even make a dent in the a.)hispanic, b.) black, c.)asian, d.)jewish, e.)gay and f.)white liberal and non-white moderate vote?


    With Bachmann as the nominee, I think Obama can win a 40 state sweep, maybe 41, but then that is the limit. The top 10 core GOP states are not going to be voting for a Democrat, plain and simple: (WY, UT, ID, OK, AK, AR, KS, NE, LA, WV)


    BTW, Yarmuth donated his entire first years paycheck (2007) to charity. He is also the first jewish congressman from Kentucky - ever.
    Last edited by bonncaruso; 7th July 2011 at 02:07 PM.

  2. #2
    Miss Mock Out jackalope's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    51,139
    Thanks
    13049

    From
    Maine
    I agree, Bachmann as the nominee means a blowout, but not a sweep.

  3. #3
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    27,485
    Thanks
    5145

    From
    N/A
    Quote Originally Posted by jackalope View Post
    I agree, Bachmann as the nominee means a blowout, but not a sweep.
    Which is fine with me. You only need 270 to win....

  4. #4
    Miss Mock Out jackalope's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    51,139
    Thanks
    13049

    From
    Maine
    Quote Originally Posted by bonncaruso View Post
    Which is fine with me. You only need 270 to win....

    Dat's right !

  5. #5
    Belle of the Ball bluesman's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2007
    Posts
    3,712
    Thanks
    1321

    From
    your place
    The republicans could bring Alfred E Newman and Obama would still not win Texas.

  6. #6
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    27,485
    Thanks
    5145

    From
    N/A
    Quote Originally Posted by bluesman View Post
    The republicans could bring Alfred E Newman and Obama would still not win Texas.
    I am not so sure about that. Bush won TX with +23, McCain won with +12 - half the margin.
    Obama's chances in TX are slim, but considering the demographic shift in this state, it is still worth it for the Democratic party to "soften" this state up for future wins, just as John Kerry did in CO in 2004. Alone, removing TX from the secure column and moving it more and more into the battleground column is worth it.

    I believe that Obama's best pickup chances are still in MO and GA. A win in GA offsets a loss in IN and NH, should they happen.

  7. #7
    Belle of the Ball bluesman's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2007
    Posts
    3,712
    Thanks
    1321

    From
    your place
    Quote Originally Posted by bonncaruso View Post
    McCain won with +12 ...

    Yeah +12 is huge when you consider it was McCain. I doubt the Republicans will bring someone that weak again. He seems like a nice guy and all but he just wasn't ever going to be a serious contender. Obama knows he will not carry Texas. The big cities actually vote Democrat but there is quite a bit of rural Texas that simply will not vote for Obama.

  8. #8
    Nuisance Factor Yeti 8 Jungle Swing Champion, YetiSports 4 - Albatross Overload Champion, YetiSports7 - Snowboard FreeRide Champion, Alu`s Revenge Champion boontito's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    92,549
    Thanks
    69656

    From
    <-- "Meme Boy"
    Obama doesn't have to win Texas to make it matter though. All he has to do is make the numbers look close enough where the opposition feels they can't take it for granted and then end up having to spend time and money there that they could have otherwise used in a more competitive state.

  9. #9
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    27,485
    Thanks
    5145

    From
    N/A
    Quote Originally Posted by bluesman View Post
    Yeah +12 is huge when you consider it was McCain. I doubt the Republicans will bring someone that weak again. He seems like a nice guy and all but he just wasn't ever going to be a serious contender. Obama knows he will not carry Texas. The big cities actually vote Democrat but there is quite a bit of rural Texas that simply will not vote for Obama.
    Wait a minute. Why? McCain is from neighboring AZ and considered a conservative. Why relativize the margin just because McCain is the candidate.

    The whole point is that this state truly is demographically changing and should it remain a red state, which I sincerely doubt, then in the single digit margins and no more in the double digits. Should the GOP lose TX as a core state, then they will have massive problems with the electoral math in every presidential cycle.

  10. #10
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    27,485
    Thanks
    5145

    From
    N/A
    Quote Originally Posted by boontito View Post
    Obama doesn't have to win Texas to make it matter though. All he has to do is make the numbers look close enough where the opposition feels they can't take it for granted and then end up having to spend time and money there that they could have otherwise used in a more competitive state.
    Correct, every battleground that Obama opens and makes a serious play is a state where the GOP will have to divert funds in order to hold the state and therefore will have less funds to try to open their own battlegrounds. It is a shell game. And Obama quite obviously will have the funding advantage. It would not surprise me if he socks 50 million alone just into Virginia to lock it into the Democratic column.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 2012 GOP Prez. nomination/candidate thread
    By (R)IGHTeous 1 in forum Opinion Polls
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 25th February 2011, 12:42 AM
  2. Replies: 31
    Last Post: 9th December 2010, 12:17 PM
  3. Obama 52%, Clinton 37% for 2012 Democratic Nomination
    By Granite in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 2nd October 2010, 04:42 PM
  4. Author: Bachmann and Beck actively trying to get Obama killed
    By Inkslinger in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 3rd September 2009, 09:05 AM
  5. Replies: 132
    Last Post: 21st November 2007, 12:20 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed