2004 is the Dems to lose

[dkamin]

I was just looking at the electoral votes, and how it seems likely different states will go. You could argue with my assumptions, but from where I sit, I think Bush is the clear underdog right now.

I think the following states are virtual Dem locks, for a total of 207:
California, 55 votes
Connecticut, 7 votes
Delaware, 3 votes
DC, 3 votes
Hawaii, 4 votes
Massachusetts, 12 votes
Michigan, 17 votes
NH, 4 votes
NJ, 15 votes
New York, 31 votes
Oregon, 7 votes
Penn, 21 votes
Rhode Island, 4 votes
Vermont, 3 votes
Washington, 11 votes
Wisconsin, 10 votes

i think the following states lean Dem, for a total of 97 votes:
Arkansas, 6 votes
Illinois, 21 votes
Iowa, 7 votes
Louisiana, 9 votes
Maine, 4 votes
Maryland, 10 votes
Minnesota, 10 votes
New Mexico, 5 votes
Ohio, 20 votes
West Virginia, 5 votes

I have Florida, Georgia (probably a stretch), Missouri (also a stretch), Nevada (because of the nuclear waste storage there, which has apparently really pissed off the citizens), and Tennessee as being toss-ups, for a total of 69 electoral votes.

Even if the Dems lose all of these tossup states, they should win, unless they lose BOTH Ohio and Illinois, states which seem to be gravitating against Bush daily.

If things keep going along the way they have been, I see Bush having a very hard time winning. Also, note that, with the singular exceptions of Arkansas and maybe Georgia, the South can be assumed to vote entirely for Bush and he'd still lose.

On edit: obviously, 270 is what's required to win.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

1. This Is Dangerous Thinking, IMO

We have to operate under the assumption that $200MM will buy Bush a LOT of goodwill, or the Dem candidate a lot of badwill.

We need to DEMOLISH Bush with the best, most electable candidate. Coattails for the House and Senate would also be fantastic.

DTH

[ButterflyBlood]

2. you have some strange classifications

Wisconsin, a state that went to Gore by less than half a percent, and NH, which went to Bush very narrowly are locks, yet Illinois and Maryland, where Gore got higher percentages than California are only leans?

[West Coast Democrat]

4. True, Illinois will easily vote Democratic

as will Maine and Maryland

[htuttle]

15. Wisconsin hasn't voted Repub for President since...

...1984. And we just elected a Democratic governor.

I hear Wisconsin called a swing state from time to time, and Bush *was* up here campaigning recently (oh, sorry, "talking about the economy"...he can't be campaigning on the taxpayer's dime, right?), so SOMEBODY thinks we're a swing state. But I don't think the Republicans have a chance here in 2004: Half the Fox valley is out of work (that's one of the big Republican strongholds), and the upper-crust suburbs of Milwaukee (another Repub stronghold) have seen their stock holdings take a beating since Bush was elected.

Back in 2000, when the election was close here in WI, Bush seemed to be a whole different person. I don't think that who he appears to be now has any chance in Wisconsin in 2004.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

20. Maryland will go Dem before NH will

I'd bet money on that.

[jenk]

3. Maine and Maryland are Dem locks

though they may be closer, I see a Dem winning both by at least 5 points.

[dolstein]

11. Like hell they are

Gore narrowly won Maine in 2000. That's a toss-up state at best. I'd say that Maryland leans Democratic, but the Democrats will have to put some resources into the state in order to nail it down.

Perhaps we should get our terminology straight. A "lock" is a state the Democrats will win regardless of who they nominate and regardless of whether the nominee even bothers to set foot in the state. There are plenty of locks in the Republican column -- Bush won't have to spend a dime to carry states like Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Kansas, Alaska and Mississippi. There are no more than a handful of Democratic locks.

[West Coast Democrat]

21. Wyoming, Alaska....Big Deal

We've got a lock on HUGE states like New York, Illinois, New Jersey & California.

[dolstein]

26. That would be nice, if only it were true

Other than perhaps New York, I wouldn't say he have a lock of these states in 2004.

The Democratic Party could very well implode in California if Davis loses the recall and Arnold becomes governor. The Democratic governor of New Jersey could very well become the next Gray Davis. Illinois is a lean Democratic state, but it too can't be taken for granted.

DU'ers seem blissfully unaware of how much time, effort and money it takes to bring states like California, Illinois and New Jersey into the Democratic column. These states didn't vote Democratic in the past few presidential elections by accident -- it's because Clinton and Gore catered to them like a fickle mistress. But now DU'ers act is if we can simply ignore them and still count on their electoral votes.

[West Coast Democrat]

29. Gore barely campaigned in California in 2000!

and he easily won....even with Nader getting a nice chunk of the vote.

Illinois was incorrectly called a toss-up, and Gore wasted time doing so much campaigning there; same with New Jersey.

[_NorCal_D_]

42. Very true.

Though if Ah-nuld becomes Governor, California may be seeing a lot more of Bush...:(

[dolstein]

49. Hello!!!! The CONVENTION was in California

If you think that holding the convention in California was purely a coincidence, you'd be wrong.

[ButterflyBlood]

50. So do you think Bush would've won CA if the convention was elsewhere?

n/t

[ButterflyBlood]

30. Maine was hardly narrow

Gore won by 5 points, with Nader taking 5.7.

Toss up "at best". Does that mean it could actually be a leans Bush state? It's one of the poorest and most unemployed states in the country!

[goobergunch]

32. Maine splits their electoral votes

Gore only won ME-2 by 1%.

[ButterflyBlood]

34. the 1st district is safe however

and so is the state on a whole. Despite Gore's narrow win, I really can't see Bush gaining any supporters in Maine's second district with the way the economy is ravaged there.

[wuushew]

33. Dolstein Maine had a 6% Nader vote in 2000

I am sure those who voted for Nader will not vote for Bush, in addition worst case scenario is that Maine splits its votes and the Dem candidate recieves one of the congressional disticts and the overall state electoral votes.

[jiacinto]

35. Maryland will vote solidly Democratic

I lived there for most of my life. Ehrlich's win in 2002 notwithstanding, the state votes Democratic. It is a safe state for Democrats.

You overestimate GOP strength.

[ButterflyBlood]

37. Seriously

you got Baltimore, over 600k people, and 80% Democratic. The GOP can't overtake Baltimore. Their areas are much less populated, and nowhere near as solidly Republican as Baltimore is solidly Democratic.

[0007]

5. What was ya doing before September 5th?

Funny how ya can come up with all this information that would make a freeper come all over the joint, 'eh?

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mistress Quickly]

6. I live in GA

and trust me, unless Gov. Purdue does something really stupid, I don't even know what, the state's going pubbie. Too much tied up in Nat'l Defense.

[West Coast Democrat]

7. Louisiana & Georgia will NOT go Democratic

but Nevada, Arizona, Missouri and Ohio are possibilities. North Carolina and/or Florida are also possibilities depending on the ticket.

[papau]

8. The "lock" without Florida depends on Ohio going Dem, and no

"upsets" - - - At this point I'd call it a close election - no matter who carries the Dem Flag.

[dolstein]

9. Stop kidding yourself

Michigan, Oregon, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania a "virtual Dem lock"? In 2000, these states remained toss-ups up until election day.

Bush carried New Hampshire, which recently elected a Republican governor and senator. Yet you call this a virtual Dem lock?

You've already put 59 electoral votes in the Democratic column that don't deserve to be there.

And let's look at the "lean Dem" states. Gore lost in Arkansas and Louisiana. He lost Ohio too. How do these suddenly become lean Dem? Even if the Democrats nominated a Souternor like Clark or Edwards, I wouldn't raise Arkansas and Lousiana any better than toss-ups. I wouldn't rate Ohio any better than a toss-up either, even with a pro-union candidate like Gephardt at the top of the ticket.

[West Coast Democrat]

12. Pennsylvania was incorrectly assumed a toss-up in 2000

California & Illinois were also incorrectly assumed to be toss-ups in 2000...but I agree that Oregon & Wisconsin were true toss-ups.

[dolstein]

16. Gore didn't pull ahead in Pennsylvania until the afternoon

The early exit polls showed Gore trailing in Pennsylvania. That's why the flew in Jesse Jackson to campaign in Philadelphia in the afternoon.

Sorry, but Pennsylvania isn't a lock. Gore may have carried it by a few points, but he had to spend a lot of time and money in order to do so. A "lock" is a state that the Democrats can take for granted. And sorry, but there is NO FRIGGIN WAY that the Democrats can take Pennsylvania for granted. The Dems are going to have to work hard to keep Pennsylvania in the Democratic column.

[West Coast Democrat]

18. The "early exit polls" in PA caused unnecessary fear

Gore won easily.

[pmbryant]

27. I recall that he won by 5 points

While substantial, I wouldn't call that 'easily' considering all the money and energy that they put into that state.

PA is no lock.

--Peter

[dolstein]

28. Gore won 51% of the vote in Pennsylvania

And that's after devoting considerable time and resources to the state. That's not an "easy" victory by any stretch.

Compare Pennsylvania to Idaho, which gave Bush 69% of the vote, or Utah, which gave Bush 67% of the vote. These states were going to vote Republican no matter what. Bush didn't need to campaign in these states at all. He didn't need to run any ads. In short, he could take them for granted.

But Pennsylvania is NOT a state the Democrats can take for granted.

[West Coast Democrat]

39. Gore Had 4% Over Bush in PA

and Nader won over 100,000 votes. The closeness of the race was exaggerated.

[pmbryant]

40. In my book, 4% is quite close

Especially since that 4% margin took a lot of active campaigning to build.

--Peter

[West Coast Democrat]

41. But Nader shouldn't be a factor in 2004

That's 100,000 PA votes.

Gore won Oregon by 4,000 votes. That's close.

[Frodo]

43. Tell that to Nader.

There's always another factor. Don't assume that everyone who would have voted for Nader will support whoever we nominate. Right now nobody is muddying the waters. What if Sharpton runs as an Ind? He'd draw more support than Nader did.

You also completely ignore the advantages of incumbency. Whether he deserves to be there or not, Shrub sits in the White House and is going to have a LOT bigger financial advantage this time around.

Lastly, remember that the 2000 race tightened up remarkably in those last 72 hours or so. Can you claim that nobody in PA was swayed by the DWI story? If it was 2% of the electorate who switched from Bush to Gore, you've got yourself a tied race. Every state we were told to watch broke Gore's way in 2000 (except FL?). PA was not a comfortable win.

No, this far out... PA is a tossup. And the winner of PA is likely to be the next President.


On Edit - Typos.

[West Coast Democrat]

44. Why do you think Nader will be a factor in 2004?

I know that a lot of "Naderites" currently support Kucinich, and plan to support the Democratic nominee if/when Kucinich loses.

Also, this is interesting:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=480903

[Frodo]

47. Last I heard he hasn't ruled out running.

And there is likely to be a Green Party candidate anyway. Their motivations do not completely overlap with ours and a significant percentage of them indicated in 2000 that there vote would not ahve gone for Gore had Nader not been on the ticket (these were often new voters).

Kucinich more closely fits the Green party (heck, he could probably run on their ticket) than any other Democrat running, but he isn't going to be the nominee. Sorry.

The Green party was created for a reason. And a big part of it was that Democrats do NOT represent them well. It's a fledgling party that is just getting into some local races and can't afford not to have someone at the top of the ticket. They have much more in common (IMHO) with us than Republicans, but they are NOT going to shut down their party so that a Democrat can win. They MAY go easy on states like PA where their vote could make a difference.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

14. You Trumpet Your Lack of Understanding With This Post

NH didn't elect Jeanne Shaheen to the Senate, last I checked. At best, this is a tossup.

I would rate MI, PA and WI as Dem-leaners, but they're certainly not in the bag.

As for your comment about Greens, it's unclear whether or not they run a candidate. I would bet yes.

DTH

[jiacinto]

36. You overestimate GOP strength in PA and in MI

for reasons I stated in another post.

[fujiyama]

51. Michigan was no toss up...

They were considered 'toss up' but even CA was considered toss up by some pollsters and pundits about a week before.

Gore won Mi, Penn, and Ill handilly with atleast a five percent margin.

I do agree about the rest, and you're absolutely correct that now's no time to get cocky.

Some states that should be focused on that are absolutely necessary to win are Wa State, Oregon, Minnesotta, Wisconisin, and Iowa (those latter three were won barely).

We have our work cut out for us. I think we have to worry more about Pennsylvania (after all this state is like any southern state be it not for Pittsburgh and Philly) and those three I listed above.

Ohio, Nevada, and Arizona, are possibilities...and if Clark is the nominee I'd say Arkansas, Louisiana, and Missourri may be in play.

One state I think is leaning more our way is New Mexico. It was extremely close in '00, but I have a feeling it's trending our way.

So, that's my take. No state should be taken advantage of. Dems can't afford to lose NH this time and must be able to carry all those that Gore won...and atleast three or four states Gore won last time, were won only with razor thin margins.

On Edit: I noticed I was wrong about the PA Gore win margin. My mistake. Also, the Nader factor: NH was tipped by Nader, and the three I mentioned above had Nader almost tipping them toward Bush.

[ButterflyBlood]

53. Minnesota was won by a larger margin than Oregon

although it wasn't too close for either if you add the Nader vote in.

[On the Road]

17. NH Went Republican in 2000

and Ohio has come to lean Republican. I agree with the general picture, but with more reservations.

It will take a strong campaigner and debater to carry the election. That's why I think Dean has a better chance than Wesley Clark -- he has run one of the most effective campaigns I can remember.

[dkamin]

19. OK

fine. fair to disagree.

my opinion is that in 2000, in a good economy, voters in blue states were more willing to vote for a self-described compassionate conservative.

since 2000, Bush has governed in a way that has made divisions between the Blue States and Red States much sharper. consequently, i think that you'll see a sharper divide in the voting in 2004. i also don't think that voters will flock to nader or any other green party candidate in large enough numbers to affect the election in 2004.

finally, i think that the election of shaheen proves my point. she's a different kind of republican. Massachusetts has Mitt Romney, that doesn't mean they're going Republican; same with California and Arnold. NH, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, in my mind, based on what i've seen in polling, have gone firmly Democrat.

we're seeing a major shift in the demographics of the two parties. just as the south kept electing democrats locally, but increasingly voted for republicans for president after the civil rights movement, i think the blue states will perhaps elect republicans locally but with a trend towards becoming a lockstep vote on democrats for president.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

22. Dude, Shaheen Was a Solid Democrat

She LOST to the rich Republican guy, Sununu.

DTH

[dkamin]

23. oops

i remembered the Republican won, i forgot the names. my bad.

[nannygoat]

45. And dirty tricks may have been in play in that race...

Are these GOP leaders aware of their dirty tricks?
http://www.thehill.com/marshall/021903.aspx

[ShaneGR]

24. Ohio

Is not leaning Dem. Ohio is, and has been, leaning Republican. But the Bush Administration hasn't been boom times for Ohio so if we field a good candidate I would expect it to be VERY close.

[Terwilliger]

25. no, they're better than everybody else

your job is to vote for them or be a traitor

[fujiyama]

52. Get lost.

Some of us here actually care about the next election. You apparently do not as your constant defending of Nader proves.

[Terwilliger]

54. heh

I'll gladly comply

[goobergunch]

31. My predictions are in the **UPDATED** Goobergunch Political Report

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=54657

[AndyTiedye]

38. You Need a Category for "Republican Lock due to Vote Fraud"

which includes Florida and Georgia currently.

If the recall passes, then add California to the Republican column.
California would never really vote that way, so if they win, you know
they have the ability steal elections in California.

It does not matter if anybody can beat Bush* in a fair election,
if there aren't any more fair elections.

[ButterflyBlood]

46. *rolls eyes*

Davis has approval at 20%, and you think the only way he could be recalled is voter fraud? I don't support the recall, but Davis simply isn't popular, period. And if you think Arnold can only get plurality with voter fraud, that's even more riduculous. I sure as hell don't like him but someone with movie star publicity who campaigns to the left of Pete Wilson getting a plurality is not outside the realm of possibility.

[Frodo]

48. True. Very true.

This wouldn't be close without the latest "revelations" (I'm not sure it's going to be close anyway).

Cruz has run a horrible campaign (I'm not sure it's his fault considering the funky circumstances and Davis' lack of support - both ways). Neither McClintoch nor Arnold could possibly beat Gray head-to-head, but structed "Davis or 'someone else'" THEN "which one out of 100+?" could easily go to Arnold without any fraud at all.

[knight_of_the_star]

55. He means in '04

If a puke gets in Sacremento tomorrow, then expect the new Diebold machines to be put in place shortly thereafter.