Democrats Seem to be Targeting 6 States

[minionofmidas]

Almost.
You'd have the same number of EVs, you'd be clearly majority Republican, but not by Idaho margins (unless we assume that the Willamette Valley would vote differently if Portland weren't in the state). Good comparison though.

I love this kind of 'what if', in which one splits states.  If it were possible to do so it would tend to benefit Republicans.  Though Oregon is unlikely to ever split I often think California should.  The southern half would possibly return some R. senators and electoral votes.

I think the only state to have the constitutional right to split -into not more than five states- is Texas. It's in the treaty between Texas and the US that settles its entry into the Union, don't know what it's called.
Now that would probably create a Hispanic majority, ultra Dem state (with low turnouts) on the Rio Grande. And then maybe one West Texas state, one based on Houston, one on Dallas, one on Austin and San Antonio (which in a good year should be Democrat). All in all it would benefit the Dems in the EC, but might well benefit the Republicans in the Senate. Looks like a win-win situation to me!

Of course it's not at all likely to happen. I guess there isn't even any kind of provision in Texas law on how to implement it.

[Gustaf]

Almost.
You'd have the same number of EVs, you'd be clearly majority Republican, but not by Idaho margins (unless we assume that the Willamette Valley would vote differently if Portland weren't in the state). Good comparison though.

I love this kind of 'what if', in which one splits states.  If it were possible to do so it would tend to benefit Republicans.  Though Oregon is unlikely to ever split I often think California should.  The southern half would possibly return some R. senators and electoral votes.

B/c morality doesn't exist in internal politics either, right?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If CA split into North California and South California, I would guess that North California would be almost a Western version of Massachusetts, while a South California would be a tossup state.

[Gustaf]

If CA split into North California and South California, I would guess that North California would be almost a Western version of Massachusetts, while a South California would be a tossup state.

Perhaps all states should have equal size, that would be more fair.

[© tweed]

If you divided NY into three areas:

Long Island/NYC: Solid Democrat.  Would stretch up to Rockland county.

Rural New York: Would be a tossup, lean GOP.  Would be upstate NY, for the most part:

Urban Uspstate NY: The Syracuse-Albany-Rochester-Buffalo patch of land would be lean democrat.

[opebo]

If CA split into North California and South California, I would guess that North California would be almost a Western version of Massachusetts, while a South California would be a tossup state.

Perhaps all states should have equal size, that would be more fair.

See, there's a 'fairness' argument for it as well - it is more representative.  

[Nation]

If you divided NY into three areas:

Long Island/NYC: Solid Democrat.  Would stretch up to Rockland county.

Rural New York: Would be a tossup, lean GOP.  Would be upstate NY, for the most part:

Urban Uspstate NY: The Syracuse-Albany-Rochester-Buffalo patch of land would be lean democrat.

I just got accepted into SUNY-Buffalo, so there's a chance I may be headed up there next year!

[Gustaf]

If CA split into North California and South California, I would guess that North California would be almost a Western version of Massachusetts, while a South California would be a tossup state.

Perhaps all states should have equal size, that would be more fair.

See, there's a 'fairness' argument for it as well - it is more representative.  

Yes, but you would only want to do it in a way that ensured Republican majorities right? My suggestion would be some sort of automatical, retro-active division, that would move the borders at every election, so the GOP is favoured. That would get maximal effect, as well as formal democracy.

[Nation]

Moving the borders after every election would be a pain for those living right AT the border. Changing state residences every four years

[© tweed]

I just got accepted into SUNY-Buffalo, so there's a chance I may be headed up there next year!

Cool!  but the football team is really, really bad there.  they are dead last in D1 I think.

[zachman]

Estrada won't get through, but if he does thats meaningless. Bush's nominations of minorities do not have a political effect, except for immunity from attack by the democrats on that subject. Bush's political moves will come back and kill him.

I like Bill Nelson as Kerry's potential VP, I saw him yesterday on C-Span and I liked him. Picking Graham would be stupid, Kerry needs to break the deadlock by being younger and newer than Bush/Cheney. I think John Edwards would be an excellent pick as well. He has a phoenominal stump speech, and did surprisingly well here in New Hampshire among the educated voters! Or Evan Bayh?

The states are smart picks. Kerry would certainly win NH and I think New Hampshire if his VP pick is smart. I see it as essentially everyone who voted for Gore, who, lets be frank, was in many ways the lowest common denominator of a democrat, will vote for Kerry. Bush's voting support has I don't think increased, especially against Kerry who has full credentials, and looks presidential. I think Bush's increased support has come within his base, but will not be strong in states with a high percent of college graduates. Kerry's hunting attempts will put him in good shape in West Virginia and his story will do well in Ohio and Missouri.

          The West will probably go for Kerry as well, unless Bush can get McCain to campaign for him with passion. Bush's environmental policy will be hard-felt for him there.

I wonder if McCain will break from the Bush camp, or stay neutral, or join Kerry. They are both veterans, senators, and both angry at the WMD situation, and think through many other issues.

[Huckleberry Finn]

I wonder that nobody hasn't mentioned Colorado. I have no idea about present economy tendency there, but I have understood that Latin population has been increased also in Colorado and that there are lot of newcomers from Northwest, Midwest and elsewhere. In 2000 Gore got in Colorado only 42.4 % but Nader got 5,25 % which brings amount of "liberal" voters to nearby 50 percent. Colorado seems to be tougher to win for Democrats than Nevada or Arizona, however.

[opebo]

Estrada won't get through, but if he does thats meaningless. Bush's nominations of minorities do not have a political effect, except for immunity from attack by the democrats on that subject. Bush's political moves will come back and kill him.

I like Bill Nelson as Kerry's potential VP, I saw him yesterday on C-Span and I liked him. Picking Graham would be stupid, Kerry needs to break the deadlock by being younger and newer than Bush/Cheney. I think John Edwards would be an excellent pick as well. He has a phoenominal stump speech, and did surprisingly well here in New Hampshire among the educated voters! Or Evan Bayh?

The states are smart picks. Kerry would certainly win NH and I think New Hampshire if his VP pick is smart. I see it as essentially everyone who voted for Gore, who, lets be frank, was in many ways the lowest common denominator of a democrat, will vote for Kerry. Bush's voting support has I don't think increased, especially against Kerry who has full credentials, and looks presidential. I think Bush's increased support has come within his base, but will not be strong in states with a high percent of college graduates. Kerry's hunting attempts will put him in good shape in West Virginia and his story will do well in Ohio and Missouri.

          The West will probably go for Kerry as well, unless Bush can get McCain to campaign for him with passion. Bush's environmental policy will be hard-felt for him there.

I wonder if McCain will break from the Bush camp, or stay neutral, or join Kerry. They are both veterans, senators, and both angry at the WMD situation, and think through many other issues.

Gore was not the lowest common denominator for a Democrat - he was the high water mark!  He got more total votes than any Democrat who ever ran for President, and he got a bigger percentage of the vote than Clinton ever got.  (Clinton only won because of Perot).  

[opebo]

I wonder that nobody hasn't mentioned Colorado. I have no idea about present economy tendency there, but I have understood that Latin population has been increased also in Colorado and that there are lot of newcomers from Northwest, Midwest and elsewhere. In 2000 Gore got in Colorado only 42.4 % but Nader got 5,25 % which brings amount of "liberal" voters to nearby 50 percent. Colorado seems to be tougher to win for Democrats than Nevada or Arizona, however.

Those hispanics don't vote that much, nor are they that big a percentage of the pop., and those other new comers are likely to be Republican voters.  Colorado its true is less likely to go Dem then NV and AZ, but even those are extremly unlikely to do so.

[minionofmidas]

I wonder that nobody hasn't mentioned Colorado. I have no idea about present economy tendency there, but I have understood that Latin population has been increased also in Colorado and that there are lot of newcomers from Northwest, Midwest and elsewhere. In 2000 Gore got in Colorado only 42.4 % but Nader got 5,25 % which brings amount of "liberal" voters to nearby 50 percent. Colorado seems to be tougher to win for Democrats than Nevada or Arizona, however.

Those hispanics don't vote that much, nor are they that big a percentage of the pop., and those other new comers are likely to be Republican voters.  Colorado its true is less likely to go Dem then NV and AZ, but even those are extremly unlikely to do so.

Colorado is an outside bet for the Dems, and I think they know it. They won't win it without winning the presidency though. Certainly not this time around.

Colorado Republicans certainly see their state as trending Democrat, that's why they tried to re-redistrict it to keep their house seats. They see the 3rd and 7th in their current shapes as pretty safe Dem by the end of the decade.
The forth district, on the other hand, will grow disproportionately and will remain overwhelmingly Republican.

[Mort from NewYawk]

Estrada won't get through, but if he does thats meaningless. Bush's nominations of minorities do not have a political effect, except for immunity from attack by the democrats on that subject. Bush's political moves will come back and kill him.

I like Bill Nelson as Kerry's potential VP, I saw him yesterday on C-Span and I liked him. Picking Graham would be stupid, Kerry needs to break the deadlock by being younger and newer than Bush/Cheney. I think John Edwards would be an excellent pick as well. He has a phoenominal stump speech, and did surprisingly well here in New Hampshire among the educated voters! Or Evan Bayh?

The states are smart picks. Kerry would certainly win NH and I think New Hampshire if his VP pick is smart. I see it as essentially everyone who voted for Gore, who, lets be frank, was in many ways the lowest common denominator of a democrat, will vote for Kerry. Bush's voting support has I don't think increased, especially against Kerry who has full credentials, and looks presidential. I think Bush's increased support has come within his base, but will not be strong in states with a high percent of college graduates. Kerry's hunting attempts will put him in good shape in West Virginia and his story will do well in Ohio and Missouri.

          The West will probably go for Kerry as well, unless Bush can get McCain to campaign for him with passion. Bush's environmental policy will be hard-felt for him there.

I wonder if McCain will break from the Bush camp, or stay neutral, or join Kerry. They are both veterans, senators, and both angry at the WMD situation, and think through many other issues.

Gore was not the lowest common denominator for a Democrat - he was the high water mark!  He got more total votes than any Democrat who ever ran for President, and he got a bigger percentage of the vote than Clinton ever got.  (Clinton only won because of Perot).  

Gore got a higher percentage of the vote than Clinton got in 1992, but lower than Clinton in 1996.

To suggest that Kerry will pick up every Gore vote is taking a lot for granted.

Gore was a sitting VP of a two-term Democratic administration with an economy still peaking. He campaigned as moderate on social/cultural issues, but as a liberal (government proposals) on the environment, education, and health.

Kerry has nowhere near the credentials of a Gore in 2000, and doesn't cover as much of the Democratic and independent moderate base. Even if the percentage of popular vote was the same in 2004 as 2000, Kerry could easily lose some of the states that Gore just managed to squeak out, while perhaps racking up bigger margins in the Northeast and Far West.

As far as McCain, I don't see him supporting a Democrat in 2004. Lieberman made some allusions to having McCain in his cabinet, which would have made sense - the two are not far off on a lot of issues, and have supported a lot of important bills together (I believe it was McCain who co-sponsored Homeland Security with Lieberman).

But McCain will campaign for the Republicans and wait for 2008.

[Nym90]

Hopefully if Jmfcst is reading this thread, he'll make the same comment about the significance of Gore getting more votes than any other Dem ever has that he made before when a Democrat brought up this fact...

[zachman]

        Gore's numbers were only high because the race was predicted to be a dead heat. So many democratic leaning voters voted for Bush or Nader, or did not vote because of Gore's lack of charisma, the truth that the media will not mention.

           Although Kerry's experience is not as strong as Gore's, he has more assets over Bush. Kerry is a veteran. His parents were not career politicians. And Kerry will be tough in the debates, and will catch Bush when he lies and exaggerates.