Electoral map for 2008

[KingFlorez]

I've been looking at the map and putting together scenarios of how we could win in 2008. We could win by holding all the states we got from 2004 and picking up Ohio, but as we've learned it's not wise to rest all hopes on one state. I think the strategy should include us targeting Ohio, Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, Florida and to a lesser extent, Arkansas. We don't need all those to win, but in case we lose the larger ones, the smaller states might be able to prop us up to a win.

[Perky]

1. You left out out Virginia

It is increasingly a swing State.

Last two Governors are Dems and we just elected a Senator.

The right type of candidate could easily move this state as well.

[GrantDem]

2. Three Words...

50 State Strategy

[Perky]

3. The problem with a fifty state strategy is financial

I don't disagree in prionciple, but media is expensive Why would you want to spend money on a huge ad buy in Atlanta when Cobus OH and Richmond VA could put you over the top with over 40 electoral votes.


Media buying and strategy is meant to do two things shore up the base or make the oppoisiotn defend theirs, You have to focuse spending on Swing states.

[Clark2008]

5. Yes - but the point is that so many are on the brink, where do

you spend?

[TheFarseer]

18. You don't need money to run an effective campaign

Jim Esch from my district ran a campaign on a shoe string budget. He only had one ad in which he said he wasn't taking special interest money and asked people to look at his website and decide on the issues. He ran a vigorous campaign based on knocking on doors, holding events and getting people excited so they would go knock on doors. He only lost 55% - 45% which is better than our previous candidates that got totally blown away despite trying to run big money campaigns complete with attack ads etc etc. I think running attack ads in a very red state is absurd, but running a vigorous campaign based on getting people to think about issues is well worth a small investment even if we don't get those electoral votes this time around. You cannot use the same strategy in Nebraska as you use in Ohio, but that doesn't mean Democrats should totally ignore Nebraska.

[Clark2008]

4. Tennessee is teetering, too.

With the right candidate, it could go blue. We already have a Dem governor, a Dem majority in our state house and senate and half our US congress critters are Democrats.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. Arkansas is in the running to switch

Because:

1. State government just went from red to blue

2. Both US senators and 3/4 of the Congresspeople are Dems

3. More people are moving into NW Arkansas, the most conservative part of the state, and not all are conservatives-if anything, I'd say they are more liberal than the natives, as a rule.

4. A LOT of soldiers have gone to Iraq from this state, which, I believe, has contributed more than its share (on a per capita basis) than some of the larger states. When a soldier dies or is maimed over there, everyone in the neighborhood knows about it, because this is a state of small towns, basically. Green Forest shut down and the whole community attended the funeral of a fellow who was killed in Iraq. We must show that the Dems are committed to supporting soldiers and veterans-this will go a long way in winning Arkansas.

[Clark2008]

7. Isn't it interesting that little band in the northern south:

Arkansas, Tennessee and Virginia - the gateways to the South - are all slowly, but surely turning back to blue.

While Tennessee is the slowest of the three to make the change, it's still far and away ahead of anything below it.

What about Kentucky? Is it making and moves toward bluer waves? It is the BLUEgrass state, afterall.

[DaveinMD]

9. Kentucky

is trending the other way. Dems are having a very tough time even getting someone to run for Governor despite the fact that the incumbent is plagued by scandal.

[Zynx]

25. Kentucky is almost as hopeless as Georgia.

[blm]

8. That's why Dean has a 50 state strategy in place. Clinton-era targetted state strategy

resulted in collapsed party infrastructures in too many crucial states and was too weak to get the votes secured and counted in 2000, 2002, and 2004.

No more COLLAPSED PARTY INFRASTRUCTURES. No more targetted state strategy. It's BULLSHIT and costs too many votes that get easily suppressed and stolen at the county and state levels.

Any good Dem candidate will win with a strong party infrastructure - and any PERFECT candidate can lose with a Terry McAuliffe-type DNC that collapses TOO MANY state party infrastructures.

[DaveinMD]

10. you can't compete in all 50 states in a presidential

the media is too expensive. Dean understands this. The 50 state strategy isn't about buying media in all 50 states. Its about providing party infrastructure everywhere, which will continue to happen.

[blm]

11. Not the point - the stronger the ENTIRE infrastructure is in 50 states, the

stronger ANY candidate will be and the more secure the election process and vote count. THAT is where the votes were being suppressed and stolen in 2000, 2002, and 2004. Of course, the media campaign will be more targetted, but that is not what McAuliffe's strategy was concerned with, his strategy was to let many states, even swing states' infrastructures collapse because he didn't think it was worthwhile to spend ANY funds in those states post 9-11, and THAT is how the GOPs were able to suppress and steal enough votes to effect the popular and the electoral tally.

[DaveinMD]

12. the investment in infrastructure will continue

but the Presidential campaign will still only compete strongly in the states that are in play to be won by both sides.

[blm]

13. True - but the 4yr DNC strategy is what puts MORE or LESS states in play.

We don't KNOW who our candidate is until early spring. That person has to be able to tap INTO state party infrastructures that are already running strong and organized efficiently.

In 2000, I lived in what should have been a blue county in South Carolina that had NO Dem office at all in the entire county.

In 2004, I lived in a blue county in North Carolina with a Dem HQ that was run out of the backroom of a florist shop with the world's slowest computers.

There's a 2004 docu commentary where McAuliffe complained on camera that Kerry didn't get set up in Ohio until June 2004. In that same piece you hear Ed Gillespie talking about the RNC working hard in Ohio in June 2003.

Point being that DNC was NEVER matching the RNC's efforts in many crucial states. And it doesn't MATTER who the nominee is when you are working on the national and the state party infrastructure. That has to be up and running strong so ANY candidate can tap into it and hit the ground running.

[DaveinMD]

14. I trust that it is up and running

Dean is continuing to do this. Its a different discussion than the one about targeting.

[blm]

15. I do trust Dean on this. I noticed that almost every primary contender jumped to help him

because they all saw firsthand how terribly weak those state infrastructures were.

[thatsrightimirish]

16. If Richardson is on the ticket

The west is in our column. If Edwards is on the ticket I think you should include North Carolina. If Obama is on it you might be able to include more southern states because of the black vote.

[skipos]

17. I disagree

Kerry/Edwards lost NC by 12%. Historically Presidential candidates get a 10% boost in their homestate. Edwards isn't popular enough in NC to flip it, IMO.

Democrats typically get a 90% of the black vote, so even if Obama yeilds a higher black turnout, it won't be that much of a boost overall. I'd rule out ever winning the states that Wallace won.

[Perky]

19. The wuestion you have to ask

is does an Obama on the ticket get blacks registered and to the polls a tnew levels?

a 20% uptick in african american voting puts Tennesse and louiiana in play.

[skipos]

21. The numbers don't add up

by my math.

2004 TN
Bush 1,384,375
Kerry 1,036,477
134,742 of those Kerry votes were from blacks. If black voter turnout was DOUBLED (very far fetched), that would have been 1,171,219 votes for Kerry. Bush wins 54% to Kerry's 46%.

A majority of TN thought Ford was too librul (and/or too black?) for them. Obama isn't going to fair any better unless the GOP nominates someone really unelectable, and they don't tend to do that.

[liberalpragmatist]

20. Actually early polls indicate Edwards would carry NC

Exit polls in 2004 in NC asked people how they would have voted in the Senate race if it had been Edwards vs. Burr. Edwards beat Burr 53-46.

And, although this is well before a campaign begins, but those Rasmussen polls had Edwards carrying North Carolina. In fact, the Edwards vs. McCain poll had Edwards winning both NC and SC, and much of the South (but McCain took a few big midwestern states and a few northeastern states like Maine and Massachusetts.

I wouldn't put too much stock in to that, but the point is that people rarely vote for VP. Edwards as a presidential candidate would be much more likely to win NC.

[skipos]

22. This site has Edward's approval at 39% on Feb 2003

and I have yet to see anything that leads me to believe that people loved his work in the senate.

http://www.elon.edu/academics/elonpoll/feb03.asp

[chieftain]

23. Add Missouri to the list of target states. Kerry should never

have pulled his advertising in '04. McCaskill's win shows that Missouri should be blue in '08.

[Zynx]

24. In order of targets it should be Iowa, New Mexico, Ohio, Nevada, Colorado

, Florida, Missouri, and Virginia. That is 97 electoral votes as I figure it on top of what Kerry got. That would be a solid win.