I Predict Kerry Will Ignore the South and Still Win

[HoopsCubs]

Publically, he'll say that every region of the country is important, and that the Democrat Party's message can win over some states in the South.

Privately, he knows he has no shot in the South (Florida is probably the only toss-up kinda sorta, but still a long-shot).

He saw what happened to Dukakis in 1988.  John Kerry knows his only shot at the White House is to take the Northern route.  It is a difficult route because he'll have to be nearly perfect, but nevertheless, it is the route he'll take.

Kerry's strategy then is simple: win all the Gore states and win in Ohio, New Hampshire and West Virginia.  That gets him to 289.  

Winning the Gore states has some pot-holes along the way.  Namely the 5 Gore "toss-up" states of Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oregon and New Mexico.   If he wins Ohio, New Hampshire and West Virginia though, he can afford to lose any 2 of the "toss-up" states other than Minnesota and Wisconsin, or he can lose Oregon, Iowa and New Mexico, and still get the Presidency.

He needs to be razor sharp.   The road is tough.   Very tough.   Bush and Rove will take their vast war chest, and do everything to destroy Kerry.   So, the question for Kerry: on what issues can he win over the voters in Ohio, West Virginia, New Hampshire, and which running mate gives him the best shot at electrifying the Democratic base in those states?  It's not John Edwards.  It's certainly not Wes Clark or Howard Dean or Bob Graham or Joe Lieberman.

Believe it or not, Dick Gephardt and his singular focus on health care for the working class and seniors, and championing rights and causes for labor unions may be Kerry's best shot in Ohio, West Virginia and New Hampshire.  Plus, Gephardt's Midwest roots should give Kerry a slight edge in holding Iowa and Wisconsin.   It is doubtful that Gephardt can deliver Missouri, but not impossible.

So, in my scenario, Kerry-Gephardt defeat Bush-Cheney by a count of 272-266.  

Kerry-Gephardt win all the Gore states except for Minnesota and Oregon, but pick up Ohio, West Virginia and New Hampshire.

[Beet]

Well it's clear Kerry is going to have to start with a base of all the Gore states, which assumes a close election. Those states are now 260 EVs. Then he can go after either Florida, Ohio, Missouri, or Arizona (the "big 4", for Democrats) to add to that total. Marginally, he could also try for New Hampshire or West Virginia, but those states will not get him to 270. So he has to win one of the big 4. Winning Ohio will give him some leeway on Gore states, say losing Iowa or Oregon.

For Republicans, the most important states to try and pick up would probably be Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. If Bush can win Pennsylvania he has the election wrapped up without a doubt. On the other hand, if Kerry can hold onto the Gore states (maybe trading one or two for NH and/or WV) and win one of the Big 4 he is in good shape.

[opebo]

Doesn't matter if Kerry 'ignores the South' - the South will ignore him.  Kind of like getting turned down for a date and saying 'well I didn't want it anyway.'  

I think the Bush campaign will be all about reminding people in Missouri, Ohio, and a few other states like WV, IA, etc, which side of the cultural divide they want to choose - the Bush/Southern Side or the Kerry/Massachucetts/NYC/California side.  Bush could win, narrowly, on gay marriage alone.

[© tweed]

Kerry has to foocus on the following states, in no particular:

1. Ohio-20-Bush
2. WV-5-Bush
3. Florida-27-Bush
4. Wisconsin-10-Gore
5. Minnesota-10-Gore
6. Iowa-7-Gore
7. NH-4-Bush
8. PA-21-Gore

AZ, NM, OR, WA, and maybe CA are important.  The soith (except for Florida) is out of reach usless he selects Clark or Edwards or Breaux as VP.

[Wakie]

I think you're right about the strategy.  The Democratic party would certainly love to have the South onboard, but it seems like the South isn't interested.  So why waste time and resources?

This isn't the Democrats walking away from the South.  The South walked away from the Democrats.

[elcorazon]

What if Kerry were to win all the Gore states, plus taking Nevada, Arizona & Colorado?  That's another route, in my opinion.  I see these as the key states:

Missouri
Ohio
Nevada
New Hampshire
Florida
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
NMexico
Arizona
Colorado

I see Michigan as being required for Kerry to have any chance.  A loss in Michigan (much like Illinois or California) means that the election isn't even close.

So long as Nader is not a factor, I just can't see Iowa, Minn, Wisconsin, Oregon or Washington going to Bush, despite how close they were last time.

Kerry could win some southern states (Ark, La, Tenn, even Ky or NC), but as with Michigan for the dems, if Bush is struggling in those states, Kerry will win easily (which I don't think is going to happen).

[Mort from NewYawk]

I agree that Gephardt now looks like the best VP pick for Kerry, and his endorsement of Kerry yesterday makes me think that he's looking for it as well. His dreams of Speaker are all washed up, why not try a shot at VP, maybe he'll get to the Presidency that way?

Gep has major name recognition. He could spend the summer and fall in the Midwest and border South - IA, WS, MN, MO, OH, MI, WV, and AK, trying to bang out the union vote and spreading the Dem line about the loss of jobs, health care mess, etc.

[PeteLI66]

Arkansas will vote for Kerry? I just can't see this.
I can't see any possibility of any southern state (save possibly FL) going for Kerry. And I don't think the VP choice will influence that at all. Edwards on the ticket wouldn't even bring in NC, unfortunately. Sure, the VP's name is all over the bumper stickers and promotional material, but I think people really do vote for the president, and dont think much about the VP in voting.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Not wishing to get shouted down but...

Please stop using 2000 as any kind of benchmark at all.
A lot can change in 4 years... Clinton almost won Texas for example.
Stop being obsessed with the 2000 results.

[opebo]

What if Kerry were to win all the Gore states, plus taking Nevada, Arizona & Colorado?  That's another route, in my opinion.  I see these as the key states:

Missouri
Ohio
Nevada
New Hampshire
Florida
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
NMexico
Arizona
Colorado

I see Michigan as being required for Kerry to have any chance.  A loss in Michigan (much like Illinois or California) means that the election isn't even close.

So long as Nader is not a factor, I just can't see Iowa, Minn, Wisconsin, Oregon or Washington going to Bush, despite how close they were last time.

Kerry could win some southern states (Ark, La, Tenn, even Ky or NC), but as with Michigan for the dems, if Bush is struggling in those states, Kerry will win easily (which I don't think is going to happen).

I think Kerry will have very little chance of winning AZ, CO, and NV.  Richardson on the ticket will only gaurantee NM.  

Kerry would not win the Southern states you mentioned, even with Edwards as VP.  The only Southern state he could win would be LA if he got Breaux as VP.  And even then they would be holding their noses.

You're right about Michigan, if Kerry can't get that one he's got no chance.

[opebo]

Not wishing to get shouted down but...

Please stop using 2000 as any kind of benchmark at all.
A lot can change in 4 years... Clinton almost won Texas for example.
Stop being obsessed with the 2000 results.

A large majority of Southerners simply dislike Northern left-wing Democrats.  2000 was only one of many examples of this.  Heck they don't even like their own 'conservative demcrats' much anymore.  Go check it out - the degree of regional antipathy in the US is pretty amazing.

Also Clinton didn't get very close to winning Texas, and even only got as close as he did because Perot voters were all Republicans.

[Mort from NewYawk]

Not wishing to get shouted down but...

Please stop using 2000 as any kind of benchmark at all.
A lot can change in 4 years... Clinton almost won Texas for example.
Stop being obsessed with the 2000 results.

I think the tendency to look at 2000 comes from a fascination with which way states fall in a national popular vote tie.

Although one can always calculate how far off the national Dem-Rep split a state goes in any election cycle, there is something very statistically "clean" about evaluating a state when the country is split right down the middle.

Of course, as you say, a lot can change in four years.

To that, I would say that they haven't necessarily changed for the better for the Democrats.

[12th Doctor]

What if Kerry were to win all the Gore states, plus taking Nevada, Arizona & Colorado?  That's another route, in my opinion.  I see these as the key states:

Missouri
Ohio
Nevada
New Hampshire
Florida
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
NMexico
Arizona
Colorado

I see Michigan as being required for Kerry to have any chance.  A loss in Michigan (much like Illinois or California) means that the election isn't even close.

So long as Nader is not a factor, I just can't see Iowa, Minn, Wisconsin, Oregon or Washington going to Bush, despite how close they were last time.

Kerry could win some southern states (Ark, La, Tenn, even Ky or NC), but as with Michigan for the dems, if Bush is struggling in those states, Kerry will win easily (which I don't think is going to happen).

Kerry is out of reach in Arizona and Colorado.  I know I said earlier that Arizona was his best bet, but not with McCain there campaigning for Bush.  Kerry's best bet is Ohio, but I give it to Bush by a least 5%.

PS plus if he sepends time there, he could lose Minnisota nd Iowa.  Making his Ohio gain pointless.

[elcorazon]

I really think there are a lot of voters in these particular western states with enough anger for Bush to cross over & vote for Kerry.  Has someone seen some polls that have changed the landscape significantly since 2000 in these states in Bush's favor.  Bush I was running similar to Dubya at this time in 1992 so are you guys saying all the additional support for Kerry since 2000 is in states he was going to win anyway or states he's too far behind to catch up.  I'm not sure what you're saying.  Or do you just think Bush is going to get more votes than Kerry and that that will translate into bigger victories in all the states he won last time, including the states I identified as being potential winners for Kerry.

[© tweed]

I don't see Gephardt accepting the VP nod.  He looked very sincere when he dropped out, I think he will retire and stay retired.

[Platypus]

I can't see Gephardt taking it either.

Let's do a bit of an analysis of the concensus we seem to have reached:

Likely Democrat wins (EVs might be a bit off, going by memory)
Hawaii (4)
Washington (11)
Oregon (7)
California (55)
Illinois (21)
Michigan (17)
Pennsylvania (20)
DC (3)
Maryland (7)
Delaware (3)
New Jersey (13)
New York (34)
Connecticut (7)
Rhode Island (3)
Massachusetts (14)
Vermont (3)
Maine (4)

50/50
Wisconsin (10)
Minnesota (10)
Iowa (7)
West Virginia (5)
New Hampshire (4)

Likely Republican
Alaska (3)
Nevada (5)
Idaho (4)
Montana (3)
Wyoming (3)
Utah (5)
Colorado (
Arizona (10)
New Mexico (5)
Texas (32)
Oklahoma (7)
Kansas (5)
Nebraska (4)
South Dakota (3)
North Dakota (3)
Missouri (11)
Arkansas (5)
Louisiana (9)
Mississippi (5)
Alabama (6)
Florida (27)
Georgia (14)
South Carolina (
North carolina (15)
Tennessee (11)
Kentucky (6)
Virginia (13)
Ohio (20)
Indiana (13)

The Dems have to win all the likely Dem states, plus at least three of the 50/50 states, to have a chance.

three of the 50/50 states are in the midwest.

The Dems need a midwesterner. I'm more then happy to be that Midwesterner, but I think they would want someone with a bit more experience and name recognition-like Bayh, Vilsack, etc.

[© tweed]

I'll make a map, grey for tossups, red for D and blue for R.


This actually gives Kerry 204 to Bush 194.

[MAS117]

hughetno check your EV for each state... your doing some "fuzzy math"

[© tweed]

hughetno check your EV for each state... your doing some "fuzzy math"

He said he was going by memory.

[Platypus]

correct

I did a map with the Dems winning all the likely and tossups, and bad news folks-they'd lose by 10.

So, if they win any likely republican state that has 6 or more, they win. those states are:

Arizona 10
Colorado 9
Kansas 6
Oklahoma 7
Texas 34
Louisiana 9
Arkansas 6
Missouri 11
Indiana 11
Ohio 20
Kentucky 8
Tennessee 11
North Carolina 15
Virginia 13
South Carolina 8
Mississippi 6
Alabama 9
Florida 27
and Georgia 15

So basically, he wins one southern state and he has won-so the south could be important. Of the likely rep states, he could probably have a chance in AZ, AK, MO, OH, TN, and FL, so he could win without it, but it's very hard to do. Very very very hard.

[© tweed]

AK?  No way.

[Platypus]

the list was looking a bit short, and hey, its more likely to change then Alabama

[elcorazon]

correct

I did a map with the Dems winning all the likely and tossups, and bad news folks-they'd lose by 10.

So, if they win any likely republican state that has 6 or more, they win. those states are:

Arizona 10
Colorado 9
Kansas 6
Oklahoma 7
Texas 34
Louisiana 9
Arkansas 6
Missouri 11
Indiana 11
Ohio 20
Kentucky 8
Tennessee 11
North Carolina 15
Virginia 13
South Carolina 8
Mississippi 6
Alabama 9
Florida 27
and Georgia 15

So basically, he wins one southern state and he has won-so the south could be important. Of the likely rep states, he could probably have a chance in AZ, AK, MO, OH, TN, and FL, so he could win without it, but it's very hard to do. Very very very hard.

Of the ones on the list, these are the "most" likely the democrats could win:

Arizona 10
Colorado 9
Louisiana 9
Arkansas 6
Missouri 11
Ohio 20
Tennessee 11
Florida 27

I'm not sure why NM was listed as definite for Bush.  If you put that in the tossup category, then it's a tossup if the dems win all the tossups and the leaning dem states, meaning the dems could win any state on the repub side regardless of EVs

[Platypus]

I'm fairly sure that NM has gone over to the dark side (dark blue, that is, of course )

[Gustaf]

I think the first part is definitely right, but the 2nd one probably not.