Kerry's VP

[Gustaf]

Which are the "traditionally Republican strongholds in the Mid-West"?

[Gustaf]

Which are the "traditionally Republican strongholds in the Mid-West"?

Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas come to mind.  Missouri and Iowa are states which can waver one way or the other.

I didn't know that these counted as Mid-Western. But there seem to be no unanimous view on what states are in the Mid-West.

[Gustaf]

I doesn't matter.  Whoever the VP chioce is, they will collapse under the wieght of the top of the ticket.

A VP choice can make a difference, but if it isn't a close election it probably won't matter much.

[Gustaf]

I've always classified the states as follows ....

New England = ME, CT, MA, VT, NH

Mid-Atlantic = PA, NY, RI, NJ, DE, WV, MD

South = VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, MS, AL, LA, AR, TX, TN

Industrial Midwest = OH, IN, KY, MI, WI, MN, IL

Midwest = IA, NE, KS, ND, SD, MO, OK

Mtn States/West = MT, ID, NV, CO, NM, AZ, UT, WY

Pacific Coast = CA, OR, WA, HI, AK

OK. I remember reading somewhere about someone touring 18 states in the Mid-West (!). The problem with your division is that it doesn't take political patterns into account. Like having Kentucky and Illinois in the same category.

[Gustaf]

I think my division (not worth much since I'm not an American) would go something like this, trying to include voting patterns to some extent:

Northeast: ME, MA, CT, VT, NH, NY, RI, NJ DE, MD

Steel States: WV, PA, OH

Mid-West: IA, MN, WI, MI, MO

South: VA, NC, SC, GA, MS, AL, AR, LA, TX, TN, KY, OK

Farm States: NE, KS, ND, SD

Western States: ID, MT, UT, WY, CO

South-West: NV, AZ, NM

Pacific: CA, WA, OR

This does not make that much sense geographically, but some politically. It leaves out Alaska, Hawaii, Florida, Illinois and Indiana, who cannot be classified in this way. Colorado is also a bit of a swing state I think.

[Gustaf]

I think my division (not worth much since I'm not an American) would go something like this, trying to include voting patterns to some extent:

Northeast: ME, MA, CT, VT, NH, NY, RI, NJ DE, MD, DC

Steel States: WV, PA, OH

Mid-West: IA, MN, WI, MI, MO, IL, IN

South: VA, NC, SC, GA, MS, AL, AR, LA, TX, TN, KY, OK, FL

Farm States: NE, KS, ND, SD, AK

Western States: ID, MT, UT, WY, CO

South-West: NV, AZ, NM

Pacific: CA, WA, OR, HI

This does not make that much sense geographically, but some politically. It leaves out Alaska, Hawaii, Florida, Illinois and Indiana, who cannot be classified in this way. Colorado is also a bit of a swing state I think.

I added the states you left out.  I think Indiana is an anomoly, being a solid Republican state in a region of states that lean democratic, but go either way.  I also think Florida is an anomoly being a "southern" state with very different demographics that keep it in play for democrats, despite the region's having become quite republican. I included Alaska as a Farm state and Hawaii as a Pacific Coast state.  NH is also a bit of an anomoly, as is Maine being more right leaning or centrist than the rest of the overwhelmingly left leaning region.

The states I left out? Are you referring to the fact that I forgot about D.C.? That would be in the Northeast, of course. I agree that Hawaii should be a pacific state, of course. Alaska is not geographically a farm state, but politically, that's why I left it out. NH and Maine aren't as serious anomalies as Illinois and Indiana and Florida. Illinois is heavily Democratic right now in an area of tossups, bot on second thought it can still be put up there b/c it isn't long-term Democratic in that sense. Indiana is still off though.  

[Gustaf]

Indiana is not so anomalous.  True Illinois and Michigan lean Democrat, but Ohio and Missouri lean Republican.

Lets see if I can contribute a list of states by political region:

Northeast: ME, MA, CT, VT, NH, NY, RI, NJ DE, MD, DC, PA

Mid-West: IA, MN, WI, MI, MO, IL, IN, OH, WV, NE, KS, ND, SD

South: VA, NC, SC, GA, MS, AL, AR, LA, TX, TN, KY, OK, FL

Western/Mountain States: ID, MT, UT, WY, CO, AR, NV, NM

Pacific: CA, WA, OR

HI and AL are not actually part of any region.

These are all political regions, as opposed to economic or even cultural.  I realize I'm elminating the Southwest, dividing it between the Mountain and Southern (some call Texas 'Soutwestern').  For now however Texas fits the South in voting tendencies, and Arizona fits the Mountain pattern.  NM is the only truly Southwestern state in the sense of what the southwest may someday be - a tossup region.  WV could fit in the South or the Midwest, but not the mid-atlantic.  I tossed it in with the midwest cause its more of a swing state.

Well, if you broaden the Mid-West to include that many states, like KS and NE, it ceases to be a region of swing states and then Indiana and Illinois fit in well. The anomaly lies in Indiana being heavily Republican, no other state is. And I think it's wrong to call MO or OH lean Republican, just like I wouldn't call MI lean Democrat. Remember, I'm taking a really long perspective on this.  

[Gustaf]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, if you broaden the Mid-West to include that many states, like KS and NE, it ceases to be a region of swing states and then Indiana and Illinois fit in well. The anomaly lies in Indiana being heavily Republican, no other state is. And I think it's wrong to call MO or OH lean Republican, just like I wouldn't call MI lean Democrat. Remember, I'm taking a really long perspective on this.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok, good point about the midwest, though I do think MO and OH do lean Republican, and MI leans Dem.  Let me revise:

Northeast: ME, MA, CT, VT, NH, NY, RI, NJ DE, MD, DC, PA

Mid-West: IA, MN, WI, MI, MO, IL, IN, OH, WV

South: VA, NC, SC, GA, MS, AL, AR, LA, TX, TN, KY, OK, FL

Western/Mountain States: ID, MT, UT, WY, CO, AR, NV, NM, NE, KS, ND, SD, Alaska

Pacific: CA, WA, OR, HI

I simply moved those extremely Republican Great Plains states - NE, KS, SD, and ND to the Western Mountain region.   Also moved HI to Pacific and Alaska to Mountain.

That's much better! Now, I agree that MO and OH might lean Republican NOW, but not in the longer perspective.

   General   Ohio      Missouri   
1948   45%   49%   -4%   41%   4%
1952   55%   57%   -2%   51%   4%
1956   57%   61%   -4%   50%   7%
1960   50,00%   53%   -3%   50%   0%
1964   38%   37%   1%   36%   2%
1968   43%   45%   -2%   45%   -2%
1972   61%   60%   1%   62%   -1%
1976   48%   49%   -1%   47%   1%
1980   51%   52%   -1%   51%   0%
1984   59%   59%   0%   60%   -1%
1988   53%   55%   -2%   52%   1%
1992   37%   38%   -1%   34%   3%
1996   41%   41%   0%   41%   0%
2000   48%   50%   -2%   50%   -2%
Sum         -20%      16%


This table over percentage of the vote for the Republican candidate shows that both OH and MO are usually very close to the general result, thus they're tossups. The column to the right of each state is the result for the nation minus the result for the state. So a negative result indicates that the state was lean Rep, a positive that it was lean Dem. At the bottom is the sum for all election years since WWII.

[Gustaf]

Reality check:
Kerry hasn't won the nomination yet.

He will, believe me.

[Gustaf]

87% of those you listed are white.

Why not include Carolyn Mosely Braun?

maybe b/c she isn't very likely to be Kerry's running mate?

[Gustaf]

87% of those you listed are white.

Why not include Carolyn Mosely Braun?

maybe b/c she isn't very likely to be Kerry's running mate?

why not?

Look at her primary results, for one thing.

[Gustaf]

Reality check:
Kerry hasn't won the nomination yet.

Spoilsport.

Anyway, it simply has to be John Edwards. A Kerry/Edwards ticket would provide the perfect balance between North/South, liberal/moderate, statesman/charisma-driven politician, ugly duckling/poster boy, etc. A winning combination if you ask me.

How about an Edwards/Kerry ticket?

The problem is that Edwards is unlikely to win anything outside the South, and that won't bite. Kerry has won the electability battle, and that was all Edwards had left.

[Gustaf]

Reality check:
Kerry hasn't won the nomination yet.

Spoilsport.

Anyway, it simply has to be John Edwards. A Kerry/Edwards ticket would provide the perfect balance between North/South, liberal/moderate, statesman/charisma-driven politician, ugly duckling/poster boy, etc. A winning combination if you ask me.

No, they'd better focus on the Midwest - they can't win in the South.

They don't have to, making it a battle ground would be sufficient.

[Gustaf]

We can win in the south, but we need the midwest more.

Ifr the Dems lose WI, MN, and IA, they've lost the election. If they gain MO or OH, they've won.

Vilsack, Gephardt, Evans, Harkin, Bayh, Dayton, O'Bannon, Doyle or Durbin would all be good choices from this area, although some might disagree with some of them....

The most recent NC poll I seen shows Bush leading Edwards 52-45%, but it was taken at 11/22-24/03, way before Edwards started to rock. I think he could pull some southern states close, at any rate.

[Gustaf]

One interesting thing to note is that candidates from both parties almost never choose Governors as running mates, even thought they are always cited as possibilities.  I think the last VP nominee who was a Gov was Spiro Agnew!

Nick

Wasn't Pa Bush govenor of Texas? Rockefeller was an ex-governor of New York, but he was never a VP nominee, just VP.

[Gustaf]

One interesting thing to note is that candidates from both parties almost never choose Governors as running mates, even thought they are always cited as possibilities.  I think the last VP nominee who was a Gov was Spiro Agnew!

Nick

Wasn't Pa Bush govenor of Texas? Rockefeller was an ex-governor of New York, but he was never a VP nominee, just VP.

Bush 41? Nah he was never Governor of Texas, he was a Congressman I believe.

Just a congressman? But I seem to recall something about it being such a long time since one of those was elected president.

[Gustaf]

Thanks, and I think what Pete's talking about is what I recalled. I checked it, and Bush served as a House member for 2 terms, 1966-1970, then gave up his seat to run for senate, but lost against Lloyd Bentsen in 1970, his 2nd loss in a Texas senate race. He then moved away to other things, before becoming VP in 1980.

[Gustaf]

Talking about Bentsen, could Edwards be the Bentsen of 2004? 1988 featured a Northeastern liberal with a Southern moderate running against a Bush. And Bentsen doesn't seem to have helped Dukakis a lot...

[Gustaf]

Talking about Bentsen, could Edwards be the Bentsen of 2004? 1988 featured a Northeastern liberal with a Southern moderate running against a Bush. And Bentsen doesn't seem to have helped Dukakis a lot...

I don't think choosing a VP based on region works very well (well, maybe for Lincoln in 1864).  It's usually better to choose a VP who will add personal qualities that the Pres candidate lacks.   For this reason, I would see Edwards as a MUCH better pick than, for instance, Graham or Gephardt.

Nick

Why, did Lincoln really need to ensure Maine?

[Gustaf]

Talking about Bentsen, could Edwards be the Bentsen of 2004? 1988 featured a Northeastern liberal with a Southern moderate running against a Bush. And Bentsen doesn't seem to have helped Dukakis a lot...

I don't think choosing a VP based on region works very well (well, maybe for Lincoln in 1864).  It's usually better to choose a VP who will add personal qualities that the Pres candidate lacks.   For this reason, I would see Edwards as a MUCH better pick than, for instance, Graham or Gephardt.

Nick

Why, did Lincoln really need to ensure Maine?

1864, not 1860.
Lincoln chose Andrew Johnson, who was from Tennessee and not even a Republican.
I believe Tennesse was reintroduced into the Union years before any other confederate state.

Sorry, I misread your post. But since the Southern states weren't participating in 1864, did Lincoln really need a Southern VP? He still lost Tenessee, despite Johnson.

[Gustaf]

Carl Levin would only make sure Michigan went Democrat so he's really not much help I don't think he will get it or even wants it it was just an Idea

Oh yeah, you're the Michigan guy...