Democrats Seem to be Targeting 6 States

[Gustaf]

After watching the coverage and analysis of Kerry's win in NH on MSNBC, FOX and CNN for many, many hours last night, it appears (reading between the lines) that the Dem's strategy for winning states that President Bush won in 2000 seems to be focused on these 6:

New Hampshire (4)
West Virginia (5)
Ohio (20)
Florida (27)
Arizona (10)
Nevada (5)

Even though the margin of victory was smaller in Tennessee and Missouri than a few of these 6 states, most conceded that Tennessee was a lot closer because of the Clinton legacy and Gore being from Tennessee (similar to what one poster told me yesterday in another thread), and that Missouri has swung more right since 2000 especially given how unpopular Governor Holden is now.

Given the formidable percentage of Hispanic  population growth in Clark county Nevada, in many counties in Arizona and New Mexico and in the 3 counties in south Florida, two analysts argued that New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson might be the perfect running mate for John Kerry (if Kerry is the nominee) to have a decent shot at winning Nevada, Arizona and Florida.

Most of these same analysts were also commenting on President Bush's ability to take away some of the states that Gore won, and most seemed to think that only Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota were possibilities, albeit medium-to-long shots.  They all said they'd be very surprised if Bush won Pennsylvania and Michigan with Kerry running.  No comments about Oregon.    
 
Back to the 6 states, the analysts felt that the only way for a Democrat to win in Ohio and West Virginia was to cement the steel traiff issue and the notion that Bush rushed us into war into the minds of those voters.  They also said winning New Hampshire would come down to how people felt on election morning.

If these experts and analysts have any credibility, I think what I learned last night was that the Democrats are going to concentrate in the North, the Southwest and Florida, and Karl Rove is going to concentate on the Mississippi River states in the Upper Midwest and the Pacific coast states.

With best regards,
HoopsCubs

Yes, that's a very decent analysis, basically this is how the election will look. Picking a running mate to get FL, AZ and NM is really interesting. Could be better to have a running mate from a state with more than 5 EVs though.

[Gustaf]

most likely during the primary North Dakota is almost certain to go republican in the general election.


Florida will go republican Bush 51% to Kerry 47%

Hehe..ALMOST certain? I'd say certain, personally...

[Gustaf]

the Dem's strategy for winning states that President Bush won in 2000 seems to be focused on these 6:

New Hampshire (4)
West Virginia (5)
Ohio (20)
Florida (27)
Arizona (10)
Nevada (5)

Even though the margin of victory was smaller in Tennessee and Missouri than a few of these 6 states, most conceded that Tennessee was a lot closer because of the Clinton legacy and Gore being from Tennessee (similar to what one poster told me yesterday in another thread), and that Missouri has swung more right since 2000 especially given how unpopular Governor Holden is now.

The thing I like best about this analysis is the recognition that TN and MO are strong Republican.  

As for the six - NH doesn't worry me a bit, and I think WV was no fluke - it will go R. again.  Ohio is the key but I really don't think steel tarrifs and all that sort of left-wing economic stuff is going to work there.  Union influence is fairly localized and declining in OH.  I'm not really worried about Florida, even with Richardson on the ticket - he's from too far away.  To be honest I don't know a lot about the demographic changes everyone keeps referring to in NV and AZ, but these are traditionally quite Republican states, and in general these new immigrants will probably be less likely to vote than the longer term residents.  

But I think the Dems should be a lot more worried about losing states - MN, IA, and WI are much more likely to go Bush than AZ and NV are to go for Kerry.  I think someone above already said that.  But I also think Pennsylvania is a real possibility for Bush.  Its doing better economically than OH.  

It isn't right to say that AZ and NV are Republican states, they're lean Republican only. Nevada is a typical swing state that almost always vote Dem when the rest of the country does: 1948, 1960, 1964, 1992, 1996, with the only exception being the Carter win in 1976, but that was different for a lot of reasons. When Kennedy won, NV was his only Western state. You're just tricked by the fact that the Republicans have won a lot of elections... AZ is more Republican, but still voted Dem in 1948 and 1996, 2 out of the 6 Dem wins since WWII (and that's partly b/c it was Goldwater's home state in 1964, otherwise it would have voted Dem as well).

[Gustaf]

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

I'd say "fora", but that's a minor point, lol.

RP's gonna get mad with you for suggesting that he doesn't know enough being a foreigner, the man knows everything...I think he has an obsession with not calling states for anyone, I don't think that he thinks that Vermont will go Rep, he just likes to point out that it could.  

[Gustaf]

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

"Carry voting weight"...lol, you mean that they aren't that many, right?

[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?

[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.

[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.