Democrats Seem to be Targeting 6 States

[TheOldLine]

You are mostly spot on in pikcing out the States that Bush won in 2000 but is most likely to lose in 2004.  Especially the part about how Tennessee and Missouri (as well as Arkansas and Louisiana) are now very strongly Republican.

I think, though, that you are using some seriously rose-colored glasses if you think that Arizona and Nevada are any more competitive than Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.    Iowa and Wisconsin were both essentially recount States in 2000.   Moreover, the power of incumbency in a generally positive economic environment (note, I did not say a perfect economic environment, merely positive) is generally considered to be worth a percentage point or two to the incumbent.   Republicans also seem to be gaining strength in Minnesota on the strength of values issues as well.    I think that the same will be true in WV this year - but I'll admit to being outside the Conventional Wisdom on that one.

As for the excitement about Richardson, I don't think that he is necessarily a slam-dunk magnet for Hispanics since he neither looks particularly Hispanic nor does he have a Hispanic last name.

Graham would certainly assist any Democrat in Florida, but he is such a bad campaigner that I think it would still be a risky bet for the nominee.

Also, given that there is a 95% chance that the nominee will be a New Englander, either Kerry or Dean (the other 5% being Edwards), I think that we can color New Hampshire as a lean Democrat in November.  

Lastly, don't underestimate the importance of Bush lavishing attention on Pennsylvania these last four years the way that Clinton lavished attention on California.    Pennsylvania will definitely feature an all-out assault by Bush, especially since winning PA would essentially be a knock-out blow for the Democrats.   Also, keep an eye on the Republican primary fight there.... if Toomey upsets Specter, it could get the Republican base in Pennsylvania out in force.

TheOldLine

[TheOldLine]

If AR, TN, MO and LA and "very strongly Republican" then I'm a donkey.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Sorry, I meant to write "very strongly leaning Republican" (in Presidential races - note that the presence of Tom Daschle says nothing about how South Dakota will vote for Presidential electors.)  

And you are a donkey. :-)

TheOldLine

[TheOldLine]

AR is a better play for Dems than New Hampshire?   On what grounds?

Bush beat favorite-son Clinton's VP by 5.5% in AR.    In contrast, Bush won NH by 1.3%, less than half of Nader's total.   Moreover, Bush will almost certainly be facing a New Englander in NH.... likely Kerry, and half of NH is basically a suburb of Boston these days.   Kerry would have to be the narrow favorite in NH, and I fail to see how his appeal as an East-Coaster in Arkansas will make up 5.5 percentage points from what Gore pulled.

TheOldLine

[TheOldLine]

What do you consider to be VT's old ways?

Also, you still haven't explained where a rich Northeasterner is going to pick up 5.5% on a popular incumbent President in a pro-war State with little immigration.    Kerry can't exactly become Clinton's VP - which implies that the real margin Kerry needs to make up is 6 or even 7%.

TheOldLine

[TheOldLine]

Yes the old ways are obvious, but I am simply shocked to think that someone might seriously consider Vermont to be turning Republican.

Gore-Nader combined for a 16%+ win on Bush.     I'd give even money on Vermont voting for Kucinich over Bush.

TheOldLine

[TheOldLine]

I think that our discussion here gets to heart of a post I made a few days ago, in response to someone who has posted a "trend map" of State trends in the last four Presidential elections.   Presumably the last four were selected because the author of the map correctly determined that no trends could be determined from the Mondale-Ferraro debacle of 1984.  

I objected to this analysis, however, as ignoring the underlying trends that affect State voting patterns: such as issues, demographics, and favorite-sons.

Thus, the fact that Vermont voted for Reagan and Nixon isn't so important to me as much as noting that electoral dynamics have changed a lot since Reagan and Nixon.   I'm interested in the trend that underlies the result.

In this case, I look at Vermont voters and see voters that are strongly pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, fairly areligious (and almost completely non-evangelical), and more anti-war than the country as a whole.    Moreover, I see voters that consistently elect a *Socialist* to Congress as being completely unimpressed by the modern-day Republican message of small government, lower taxes, and smaller government.  

TheOldLine

[TheOldLine]

I think that it is a real mistake to project votes for Presidential electors based on local State races.   After all, there is not a single one-party State in the United States.   Heck, Wyoming has a Democratic governor and the Tom Daschle was elected in South Dakota, but believe me Wyoming and South Dakota are as solidly Republican in Presidential races as it gets.

I am sure that Vermont does elect Republicans - but these Republicans are surely far to the left of the sort of Republicans that would ever be a Presidential nominee for the Republican Party.  

Bernie Sanders is no doubt an excellent constituency representative - he has to be to keep getting elected as a Socialist - but he still had to get elected once in the first place, and that tells you a lot.   At any rate, all that is besides the point - I am sure that you would agree that Vermonters in general are far more supportive of big government spending programs and progressive taxation than are the residents of just about any other State.   Likewise, they are strongly pro-abortion, fairly pro-gay-marriage, and generally don't expect a lot of religiosity from their office-holders.  

For all those reasons they are particularly unlikely to respond to George W. Bush's message.

TheOldLine

[TheOldLine]

Well, I'll guess that we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.   I see that you are from the UK, and it is great to have some international perspective in this forums.... but I really do think that you should investigate deeper into whether or not Vermont will really be as hard to predict as you might think.

I can't help but wonder if your opinions might be colored by the fact that the two major political parties in the UK, Labour and Conservatives, do not often switch constituencies the way that US Major Parties have done.

Just 50 years ago, Vermont and the rest of New England formed the base of a Republican Party that was based upon Notheastern elites, traders, and bankers, as well as the dying embers of the abolitionist movement.   The Democrats, meanwhile, were based on Southern populism going all the way back to Andrew Jackson, as well as anti-desegregation backlash against Reconstruction coupled with Midwestern Progressivism fueled by Scandinavian immigrants and backlash against some of the abuses of the Industrial Revolution.  

Today, the opposite is true.   The heart of the Republican Party has evolved out of the anti-government, "leave me alone", semi-libertarian movement of the American West, which has evolved to embrace the dying embers of the "states-rights" movement in the South, and evangelical religous conservatism.    The Democrats, meanwhile, are firmly ensconced in the Northeast, and more generally in the impovershed minorities of our inner cities and in the new economy workers of upscale city districts and affluent suburbs surrounding our most dynamic cities.  

The punch line to all of this is that the Republicans and Democrats have traded geographical places, and believe me, Vermont is now one of the most reliably Democratic States in the Union.

TheOldLine

[TheOldLine]

My best guess is that Bush will win Arizona.   After all, let's keep in mind that in the modern era every incumbent President without a serious primary challenge and with a decent economy has won re-election pretty handily.  

If somehow Kerry can keep it close - and I have serious doubts about this (although Clark is even worse in my estimation) then the influx of Hispanics in Arizona should make it competitive, but AZ probably won't be a true toss-up until 2008 or 2012.

As for Oregon, Oregon is tricky because its population is sooooo concentrated in the Portland area.   Thus, if you travel throughout almost the entire State of Oregon it can appear like total Bush-Cheney country.   Unfortunately, all that geographic area carries relatively little voting weight compared to the Portland Metro Area.

TheOldLine