Nineteen states is all we need...

[Capn Sunshine]

Lets play with the map again. Just to update you new guys that's all we need to win this. NINETEEN STATES:

WA OR CA NV WI IL MI NY VT NH ME MA RI CT NJ PA MD DE FL

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~jab/elect/

try it yourself. Variations. It's in the BAG! Bring 'em on!!

[0rganism]

1. Two problems, right off the bat

1. The numbers are old. You need to get a map with current numbers, like those found here:
http://www.c-span.org/classroom/govt/electoral2.asp

2. No way in hell is Florida going Democratic. There's simply way too much corruption and nepotism happening there. It could even vote overwhelmingly Democratic, and still go republican.

edit: here is an updated electoral map, enjoy.
http://www.scriptsearch.com/cgi-bin/jump.cgi?ID=6069

[NewYorkerfromMass]

22. Florida could vote overwhelmingly Democratic, and still go republican

we noticed.

[HitmanLV]

2. You need an updated electoral vote tally...

...and also no way, given how it looks now, is a dem going to win all of NV, WI, NH, PA, & FL.

I live in Nevada - Bush country, far and wide.

PA is the best shot of this short list I made.

No way a dem is winning all 5 of these states, sorry.

[Bombtrack]

3. Dean probably wouldn't win half of those

in a kerry/Bush matchup, the 2000 Gore states that the GOP plans to go after most aggressively are OR, NM, WI, IO, and PA. They chose those because they could win very realistically win them.

That's against Kerry, who is a MUCH stronger general election candidate than Dean. They would have those states in the bag and probably many more Blue states, and he would make dems struggle for vital "strongholds" like NY and CA.

[0rganism]

4. Here's a scenario to consider: winning without FL or PA

Once again, this is courtesy of
http://www.scriptsearch.com/cgi-bin/jump.cgi?ID=6069

1) D: HI, WA, OR, CA, NM, MN, IA, AR, WI, IL, MI, OH, WV, DC, MD, DE, NJ, NY, VT, MA, CT, RI, ME
total: D 270, R 268

Objection! AR and WV couldn't possibly go D, right? And let's say Iowa is gonna vote for bush*. OK...

2) D: HI, WA, OR, CA, AZ, NM, MN, WI, IL, MI, OH, DC, MD, DE, NJ, NY, VT, MA, CT, RI, ME
total: D 270, R 268

(Added Arizona to the Dem side)

Basically, if Dems don't carry PA, something else has to give or else it's bush for four more years. EOL.

[elperromagico]

6. A little bit about Arkansas

Our governor, Huckabee, is a Republican. So is our lieutenant governor, Rockefeller. Huckabee won more on personal likability than anything IMHO, and it certainly doesn't hurt that Rockefeller is the son of a well-respected (and very progressive) former governor.

All other statewide offices are held by Democrats, all of whom won by large margins. Three of our four representatives are Democrats, and both of our senators are Democrats as well.

I wouldn't say that Arkansas is a guaranteed Republican win for Bush. With a strong Dem candidate, it could easily go Democratic. Considering how close the last election was (and how close the next one will probably be), 6 electoral votes could go a long way.

Just thought I'd throw in my 1.5 cents.

[WinstonChurchill]

9. But How Will Howard Dean's Views on Gay Marriage Play in Arkansas

Seems to me that Northeastern liberals Ds will not play well in a state like Arkansas

[elperromagico]

10. You make a very real point

Arkansas Democrats (myself and others excluded) are typically moderate. Dean's views might put some voters off, and could potentially lose the state for the Dems.

If we're talking about winning Arkansas, a Dean/Clark ticket or a Clark/Dean ticket might be the ideal. But if the Dems can get a hold in Ohio (and keep California), I'm sorry to say that Arkansas wouldn't be terribly important.

I'm of the opinion that Ohio is vitally important in 2004. If we show early leads in Ohio, it's a very good sign for our chances in general. Republicans have never won the White House without winning Ohio... if Bush pulled it off, it would be the first time.

[tedoll78]

15. Actually..

Dean needs to run a TV commercial of Dick Cheney saying in his second debate with Lieberman that "we need to do everything we can to accomodate those relationships." (I'm paraphrasing there). If Dean points-out that he and Cheney share the same position on the issue, I think he can effectively neutralize it. If Dean is an extremist on the issue, than so too is Mr Cheney.

[elperromagico]

17. I think the Dems ought to run ads

... showing Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Powell contradicting themselves. No narration, just captions giving the time when the comments were made. Allow them to damn themselves with their own words.

The problem is that Bush's "good ol' boy" factor is hard to overcome. You've got a lot of people who will overlook his many faults because he "seems like a nice guy." Look at his personal approval ratings, and then compare them to his approval ratings on individual issues. The two things keeping his personal approval ratings high are his stance on terrorism and his "personal likability." People who give him a positive approval rating think (for whatever reason) that he is a decent fellow; they are giving him the benefit of the doubt.

If we want to beat him, we have to show him for what he really is: A lying, calculating cheat who has never worked for anything in his life. It's a hard picture to paint, but it's the truth.

[HitmanLV]

8. sorry....

A dem winning each of NM, IA, AR, WI, OH, and AZ is stretching it.

[0rganism]

30. Of course, that's why I'm saying we practically need to win PA

What's really stretching it is the 19-state scenario in the original post.

[elperromagico]

5. Need more than nineteen

I think those states only add up to 260 electoral votes.

What we need... is Ohio. Bush won it by less than 1% last time, and no Republican has ever won the White House without winning Ohio. "Gotta play in Ohio," as Bob Dole said in '96 (he lost there, btw).

Would be nice if Arkansas went Dem again as well. I damn sure intend to help it go Dem.

[0rganism]

32. Winning Ohio makes the whole situation much friendlier

If a Dem can pick up Ohio, this is a possible winner:
WA, OR, CA, NM, MN, WI, IL, MI, OH, PA, NY, DC, MD, DE, NJ, CT, RI, MA, VT, ME, HI

21 states, and we don't even have to win Florida.

[elperromagico]

7. Thought I'd jabber a bit more

There are states Democrats are pretty much guaranteed NOT to win.
SD, CO, ND, NE, KS, OK, TX, WY, ID, AL, IN, NC, SC, AK, and VA haven't gone Democratic since '64 or '76. Mark them off of a victory map immediately, unless you're expecting a Democratic landslide.

California is more likely to go Democratic than Republican (double digit victories for Democrats in the last two pres. elections), but the recall does shake things up. CT, DE, DC, HI, IL, MD, MA, MI, NJ, NY, RI, and VT can probably be expected to go Democratic.

This gives us (excluding CA) a raw figure of D-130 to R-133. Add California (knock wood), and the figure becomes D-185 to R-133.

The rest are, for all intents and purposes, in play. It's an uphill struggle, but victory is entirely in the realm of the possible.

[Capn Sunshine]

11. I like your thinking

I post this nineteen state theory ever six months or so, and it's always amusing how many "no way would we win___" posts there are
as opposed to re-dedicating yourself to getting out the vote.

We CAN win VA. We CAN win NV- it was 49/51 last time. We CAN win any of the "no way we can" states.

You just gotta BELIEVE.

get it?

[JohnKleeb]

14. VA I hate to say so but as a Virginian I disagree

[elperromagico]

16. I'm being realistic

I'm of the opinion that, barring a landslide, chances are we will not win the Republican states I mentioned in my earlier post. It would take a remarkable set of circumstances for us to win a landslide (or for Bush to win a landslide) in '04. I expect the final popular vote to be split very close, and the electoral vote to be split somewhere in the neighborhood of 275/263.

What I was trying to do in my previous post was to look at the situation rationally--- to say, "All right, these are the states that will probably go Republican, and these are the states that will probably go Democratic." I'm not saying they will definitely go Democratic or Republican, but it is most likely they will go Democratic or Republican.

By my calculations, this leaves 24 states (with 275 electoral votes) which can be referred to as "in play"--- in other words, states which have not shown a consistent party preference in the last several elections, or were won by narrow margins: AZ, AR, CA, FL, GA, IA, KY, LA, ME, MN, MS, MO, MT, NV, NH, NM, OH, OR, PA, TN, UT, WA, WV, and WI. I added CA because of the iffiness the recall produces. I personally feel it will go Democratic.

Take the Republican/Democratic strongholds, add the "in play" states, and you get this figure:
D-130
R-133
O-275
Add California to the Democratic side, and it becomes:
D-185
R-133
O-220
Add it to the Republican side (God forbid), and it becomes:
D-130
R-188
O-220
These figures would imply (to me at least) that things are far from decided.

Of course, a great deal is purely left to chance.

[jiacinto]

26. VA would be hard

VA WILL become competetive in future cycles. But not quite yet. Farifax County is turning Democratic. While Bush I carried the county comfortably in 1988 he barely eked out wins in 1996 and in 2000. In 2000 the Nader and Gore totals were larger than Bush's.

[rasputin1952]

12. I think the bushies are scared...

and the elctorate is not as foolish as they would like us to believe.

Things actually look a little rosier. BUT, the one thing I AM worried about, is Diebold. Without a 'hardcopy' of the ballot for recount purposes, there is simply no way anyone will trust them. This is the biggest sticking point of the entire election scenario.

[mermaid]

13. Actually, Theoretically, Thirteen Could Do It

Yu'll note my thirteen does not include Texas...that's gonna go R no matter what...I know, I live here...

Here's my thirteen:
CA FL GA IL MA MI NC NJ NY OH PA TN VA

Of thsose states...these went D last time...

CA IL MA NJ NY PA

and the following were very close the other way...
FL MI OH TN

I know, getting GA NC and VA is wishful thinking...but hell, I didn't include many likely to go D...like RI CT VT NH DC and a few out west...those states could make up the difference we lose from GA NC and VA...and a couple of te close ones...
This is very winnable...but I agree, we need to hammer on OH, MI, FL, and TN...those states were all VERY CLOSE....

[elperromagico]

18. Actually

... Michigan went Democratic by about a 5 point margin.

Ohio is essential IMO; a victory there would strike a huge blow to the Republican juggernaut. Don't doubt for a moment that the Republicans don't realize that too. Bush will campaign there a great deal... the Dem nominee has to as well.

[elperromagico]

19. Try the calculator here:

http://www.grayraven.com/ec/

As George Dubya would say, "Get to strategerizin'!"

[Vis Numar]

20. I got it down to just 14 states

;)

If we got Texas, we could do it with just 11 states!

TX, CA, FL, VA, NC, Il, OH, MI, PA, NJ, NY

[tedoll78]

21. Here's what I think:

First, keep in mind that George Soros' GOTV funding will provide more money than we've ever put towards those operations. $75 million for GOTV in 19 states is absolutely, positively HUGE. GIGANTIC.

Secondly, the Greens won't run as strongly as they did last time. That bullshit "there's no difference between the parties" line won't hold-up, as people realize that a Democrat CAN do some real good. I predict that their candidate gets 1% in the final vote tally, which will be of huge benefit in PA, MN, WI, and OR.. as well as in shoring-up the rest of the Gore states.

I advocate a Dean-Clark ticket.

Assuming that we take the Gore states (which is, admittedly, a tall assumption at this point), we need 10 more EVs. If we do indeed take the Gore 260, Dean will win New Hampshire. Bank on it. They like his record of healthcare for all children, two income tax cuts, 11 years of balanced budgets, and a rainy day surplus when he left (which was phenominal compared to other states at the time). Add that Gore lost NH by 22000 votes, and that Nader won over 100000 votes. The NRA's being disarmed also helps here.

264EVs.

Clark puts AR into striking range. Like stated earlier on the thread, the Democrats are running impressively strong in the state. With Clark on the ticket, we can run him, Dean, and an occasional appearance with Clinton through the state. Combined with the gun issue and Soros' GOTV operations, this state looks really good.

270EVs.

I didn't mention something earlier: Soros' spending GOTV money allows us to focus spending our own money on other things.. like fighting Bush on TV. Considering that the Democratic field this quarter matched Bush, we will be competetive. With clever ad campaigns that are upbeat/positive, and maybe even humorous, we can win the air war.. and we'll have more money to do it with.

Now.. more states to consider.

Arizona. The demographics are changing constantly into our favor, combined with the migration of more liberal California voters. 10 more EVs would look nice here. Very possible.

Ohio: very hard-hit by this crappy Bush economy. Among the hardest-hit, actually. Tons of job loss. Gore lost it by 4% in 2000, but only after giving-up on it three weeks before election day. Nader got 2%. But this time, a Democrat's candidacy won't be hurt by the gun issue. Dean will have a real fighting chance here. 20 more EVs.

West Virginia: Again, economically hard-hit. And didn't we win this state in 1988?! If we can win it then, we can win it here. In 2000, Gore allowed Bush to tar him an anti-gun and pro-environment extremist. With the right ad campaign, Dean can effectively shut-down that smear attempt. 5 more EVs.

One reason I pick Dean is his alleged ability to bring new voters into the process. Go to any MeetUp and ask who's new to voting, and anywhere from 1/2 to 2/3 of those present will raise their hands. Add to this thousands of first-time-ever political donors, and surveys showing that Dean voters are the most likely to show-up at caucuses and on voting day. If turnout goes up a mere 3%, that's 3 million more voters going directly into the "D" column. Considering that about 100 million voters will likely vote, and that the electorate is close to 50-50 again, 3 million more voters will likely have looooong coattails.

Now.. what about the gay marriage issue? I answered it elsewhere in the thread: if Dean is an extremist, then so too is Cheney. And yes, I think Dean would have the courage to frame it that way.

Adding-up all of these states, there are 305EVs within our reach. Surely, we can string-together 270 somewhere, right?

[elperromagico]

23. Very good points

At first, I assumed that all we needed to do was win the Gore states and one other state. Now I see the importance of having several more states (Ohio, Arkansas, New Hampshire, Nevada, et cetera) under our belt in 2004, in case we lose some states Gore won in 2000.

Worst case scenario: Bush replaces Cheney with Giuliani as his running mate--- NY goes Republican. California pulls off a miraculous recovery--- CA goes Republican. Then we're in trouble... 86 electoral votes lost.

[Julien Sorel]

28. Cheney isn't running for president. Dean is.

Cheney might not even be on the ticket.

[delete_bush]

24. Can we then get a new flag

with nineteen stars?

[Capn Sunshine]

25. Blue and red stars

on a field of white?

[delete_bush]

27. I still like the old red white and blue

but only the blue states get a star.

Then we build walls and let the red states fight it out with each other, which they will do because they always need an enemy.

They're using up way too much energy in various forms and are just not amusing anymore.

[0rganism]

31. Blue stars on a field of blue would be more apropos

The country cares diddly shit about those of us blue states, even though we give more in taxes than we get in bennies.

[delete_bush]

33. Not surprising,

do you happen to know the percentage? I'll call Rush and get his take on this, I think he knows something about bennies.

[AP]

29. I wouldn't bet money on winning PA, especially since it looks like the FBI

is involved in the mayoral campaign there in Philadelphia...

Also, McGeevey is becoming an object of scorn in NJ. Might be tough there. Romney won't make things easy in Mass, but I don't see Dems losing there. CA is going to be Diebold-a-rama too, and then you have the charismatic fascist running the show there too.

Also, and almost as importantly, you got to compete everywhere, or we're going to lose the senate races. So, as long as you're campaigning hard in the south to hold those senate seats, you might as well set your sights on winning a few of those states for the presidential race.