Is the midwest crucial for victory?

[MaC]

This isn't too far from what happened last two elections.  I mean why bother campaigning anywhere other than the midwest?  Republicans have a lock on the south and west (middle America) and Democrats have a lock on the Pacific and Northern Atlantic coasts.  The only real toss-up is this Area.  I dunno why Kerry went to Arizona or Alabama to stump for votes.  Really don't understand Dick Cheney flying all the way to Hawaii to stump for their votes.  This is really the only useful area to try for.

[MaC]

ah, yea forgot to mention, it's deadlocked at 269-269

[Beet]

Of course the midwet is crucial for victory. That said its not the "only" place to try for.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

A Republican would never win Minnesota while losing Iowa, Wisconsin and Ohio. We are the most Democratic of those states.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Midwest and Pennsylvannia is the primary battleground because most of its States are comptetive in close Presidential elections, are close to one another which cuts down on travel time for the candidates when they go from place to place, and have enough EVs to be worth worrying about.  If current trends continue, the Southwest should develop into an attractive campaign area as well by 2012 with over 30 EV’s for grab in Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

That's why I think a Feingold / Bayh ticket has promise. If they take IA, WI, MN, MI, OH, and PA, they win.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

A Republican would never win Minnesota while losing Iowa, Wisconsin and Ohio. We are the most Democratic of those states.

What if he's from MN?

[minionofmidas]

Okay, move around Minnesota and Wisconsin...slightly even more realistic, still tied.
If Dems didn't campaign outside this area but Reps did, there are a number of states the Dems would lose. Same goes the other way round. Plus it's probably bad PR to run a blatantly non-national campaign.

[opebo]

The midwest is close but not changing much.  Nevada, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico are the fastest changing region.  One might possibly throw in Virginia.
 
That doesn't mean your point about OH-WS-IA-MN-PA isn't valid, I'm just saying the Southwest will become about as close as that area as it becomes more Democratic.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

A Republican would never win Minnesota while losing Iowa, Wisconsin and Ohio. We are the most Democratic of those states.

What if he's from MN?

Possible then but that's not likely anytime soon. Pawlenty is incredibly overrated, the only person more overrated than Coleman considering that I can see why Pawlenty would have appeal to conservatives, but Coleman is a generic party hack with absolutely nothing special about him. Neither one would be a lock for winning Minnesota either since they both are going to have tough reelection bids.

[Emsworth]

Really don't understand Dick Cheney flying all the way to Hawaii to stump for their votes.

Hawaii was actually supposed to be quite close, according to some polls. Kerry's lead was certainly within the margin of error. In the end, of course, Kerry did win it somewhat comfortably.

The midwest is close but not changing much. Nevada, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico are the fastest changing region. One might possibly throw in Virginia.
 
That doesn't mean your point about OH-WS-IA-MN-PA isn't valid, I'm just saying the Southwest will become about as close as that area as it becomes more Democratic.

The influx of Hispanic immigrants into this area would definitely point to such a trend.

[opebo]

Of course MN,WS,IA,OH,PA add up to 68 electoral votes, while CO,AZ,NM,NV are only 29.  Even throwing in VA as another possible soon-to-be-swing-state-due-to-demographic-change only raises that total to 42.  The midwest does seem like where elections will be decided for quite a while, assuming Florida stays GOP.
For example:

Though I really doubt PA is trending GOP.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This is how I see the 2008 battlemap right now assuming a close election in the popular vote:

Dark blue and dark red states would take a blow out of 1932 or 1984 proportions for the other party to win.
Light blue and light red wouldn’t be a total surprise for the other party to win, but they would have already have won the election because of other States if they get them unless the favored party fails to do anything to hold them.
The gray states are the battleground.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This is how I see the 2008 battlemap right now assuming a close election in the popular vote:

Dark blue and dark red states would take a blow out of 1932 or 1984 proportions for the other party to win.
Light blue and light red wouldn’t be a total surprise for the other party to win, but they would have already have won the election because of other States if they get them unless the favored party fails to do anything to hold them.
The gray states are the battleground.

You're ignoring home state advatage for someone like Bayh.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You're ignoring home state advatage for someone like Bayh.

Home state advantage might cause a one grade shift in some cases, but we don’t know which states will be the home states yet. Bayh would cause Indiana to become light blue and if he managed to do as well as his advocates suggest he would win Indiana, but home state advantage is not a reason for the Democrats to consider Bayh.

[MaC]

This is how I see the 2008 battlemap right now assuming a close election in the popular vote:

Dark blue and dark red states would take a blow out of 1932 or 1984 proportions for the other party to win.
Light blue and light red wouldn’t be a total surprise for the other party to win, but they would have already have won the election because of other States if they get them unless the favored party fails to do anything to hold them.
The gray states are the battleground.

yeah, that seems about right.

BRTD, and others, my map of the midwest, (Minnesota being GOP) relects for a deadlock of 269-269, however it's not necessarily meant to be all that accurate.  It could turn out like that, not impossible, but it's more or less for proving my point.  It's all a matter of prioritising what's able to be taken.

[opebo]

Here's one using the shading to reflect leans in 2008:
Solid to Leaning Democrat - 242
Solid to Leaning Republican - 249
Tossups with no lean  -         47

 

[Hitchabrut]

Yes, and no. It is becoming closer, but less significant, population-wise, so the question becomes ambiguous.

[muon2]

The Midwest is currently the most crucial region, because it has the most EV in swing states. By swing states here I mean swing states assuming an even national electorate, and no home favorite.

opebo's map has 37 out of 47 toss-up EV in the Midwest. Ernest has 64 out of 143 battleground EV in the Midwest (more if you add PA with its close proximity to OH). If the base is solid, a candidate is going to to go where the votes are most in the balance.

[Bono]

That's why I think a Feingold / Bayh ticket has promise. If they take IA, WI, MN, MI, OH, and PA, they win.

except if they run against another midwesterner, say, Sam Brownback...

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Brownback doesn't have any appeal in this part of the midwest (where the important states are) at all. Same as Feingold has no appeal in Kansas.

[12th Doctor]

Brownback doesn't have any appeal in this part of the midwest (where the important states are) at all. Same as Feingold has no appeal in Kansas.

Have to agree with you there.

[Democratic Hawk]

That's why I think a Feingold / Bayh ticket has promise. If they take IA, WI, MN, MI, OH, and PA, they win.

I think a Bayh/Feingold ticket has greater promise

I think Bayh has a better chance of picking up Missouri and Ohio, than Feingold, which is why he should top the ticket. He should bring Indiana along as well.

Unless the GOP nominee is from the Mid-West than Bayh could sweep the region with the exception of Kentucky (and even there he'll have a better chance than most Dems)

Dave