The ’04 battleground states – Clark or Dean?

[boxster]

National polls are fine, but they don’t really tell us anything. National results aren’t indicative of guaranteed success - Gore won the popular vote in 2000, but lost the election, albeit in part thanks to the decision handed down by the Supreme Court.

Electoral votes are, of course, the real prize, so the results in battleground states will again be all-important in 2004. We tend to lose sight of that and instead voice feelings of glee or doom each time a new national poll is released. We rant and rave and declare candidates elected (or least electable) based on these polls.

The real question should be: how will our eventual nominee do in the states that are going to decide Election 2004? All ideologies aside, this should probably be the most important consideration if our primary goal is to beat Bush next fall.

Below is a list of the “close” states in the 2000 election – states decided by 8% or less of the overall vote. With a couple of possible exceptions (SC, NC, etc.), these states are again going to be the “in play” states in 2004.

For sake of argument, let’s assume that the Democratic nominee ends up being either Clark or Dean. Of the two, who is more likely to keep the states Gore won in 2000 and pick up states that Bush won in 2000?

Gore won:
Washington
Michigan
Maine
Pennsylvania
Minnesota
Oregon
Iowa
Wisconsin
New Mexico

Bush won:
Florida (*)
New Hampshire
Missouri
Ohio
Nevada
Tennessee
Arkansas
Arizona
West Virginia
Louisiana
Virginia

My thoughts:
Both candidates can probably keep most of the states Gore narrowly won, though Bush did surprisingly well in states like IA and WI, so it’s going to take a lot of effort to keep them on the (D) side. Vilsack and Harkin will certainly help in IA.

Clark has the edge in the South – I think that’s a given, though I'm certain that many will disagree. A strong showing in the South is potentially huge – FL, TN, AR, WV, LA, and VA are all within somewhat realistic reach – because winning even a couple of states there could provide a critical swing in electoral votes.

The strong Union support of Dean in the primaries could very well carry over to strength in PA, MI, OH, among others, in the general election. Dean is also perhaps a stronger candidate in the Northeast, but with the exception of NH, it’s pretty much a Democratic stronghold, so Clark should do well there, too. Bush did surprisingly well in NH in 2000, and one recent poll (which I sincerely hope isn’t accurate) shows Dean 27 points behind in a head-to-head with Bush. While this is likely inaccurate, it is nevertheless a little eye-opening.

The fact that national security is going to be a focal point of the Bush campaign (what else does he have to run on??) is very much an issue, albeit an intangible one.

Clark counters this effectively because of his background, and Dean is pretty much a wash with Bush for the same reason. This gives Clark the edge in states with a high percentage of military voters (FL, VA, among others) and with the public in general, at least among those voters who believe that national security is important right now. Clark would undoubtedly draw significantly more military votes away from Bush than Dean would.

Dean's intangibles are the strength of his campaign organization and his ability to raise money. Voter turnout could obviously be a huge factor in close races, and money is often necessary to help get out the vote. A ton of late-election ads could also help sway close races. That strategy certainly worked for the Republicans in 2000 and 2002. Clark has had some early fund raising success, but his late start likely makes Dean's fund raising totals insurmountable.

Disclaimer: I’m a Clark supporter, though I will definitely vote for Dean in the GE if he wins the nomination. I support Clark in part because I think he is a better head-to-head match-up for Bush in the areas that we all know Bush is going to hammer on – national security, military strength, war in Iraq, etc. I think Clark effectively counters President Flyboy’s C-in-C, stuffed flight suit façade.

[JasonFromWaltham]

1. Kick

[tom_paine]

2. Clark, though I would also support Dean, but I think Clark.

[trogdor]

8. Either order is fine with me...

...and I'm one of your counterparts on the Dean side.

I'd think Dean and Clark would compliment each other. I've believed that for a long time. Dean has the organizational skills and a kind of Jeff Bridges thing going for him, while Clark plays better in the South, has a sterling military record, makes the establishment feel better, and just kicks ass. The theme for this election is, 'tell it like it is,' and both Dean and Clark do just that.

[Anaxamander]

3. Clark better in a head-to-head...

...but I like Dean's chances too. If you listen to the conservative media, Dean is a frothing-at-the-mouth liberal, but Clark is *quietly* more liberal than Dean. The advantage is that no one seems to notice.

[boxster]

5. I agree.

It's funny that Clark has been accused of being a Republican, when he's really quite liberal. Dean, who is pretty conservative fiscally, is branded a flaming liberal.

Of course, Bush, who has turned out to be a right-wing wacko, was labeled a "compassionate conservative", least accurate of them all.

I think part of the reason for Dean's label is the civil unions bill. Conservatives will brand pretty much anyone pro-gay or pro-choice as a liberal, regardless of the person's stances on other issues.

Even if the media does start to notice Clark is pretty liberal, he counters the typical soft-on-defense claim most liberals are targeted with quite effectively.

[CalebHayes]

4. Most of thouse states are not even "battleground" states...Clark anyway

Washington is not in play... I live there. It may be some troble if Nader makes a strong showing.

Ohio is not in play. Democrats just never win there. :(

And Nevada?

[boxster]

6. Clinton won both Nevada and Ohio in '92 and in '96.

So, I'm not sure what you're talking about.

I'll agree that Washington is probably safest on the list, but it happened to make my arbitrary cutoff percentage-wise.

If the states listed aren't battleground states, which ones are? Every state not listed went to its respective winner by more than 8% in 2000.

[Bombtrack]

10. Clinton won Ohio, and it is a battleground state

if it wasn't, Bush wouldn't be visiting it as much as he does.

there are about 15 or 16 real battleground states, and that could expand to up to 20 depending on something unpredictable and unusual happening in a certain region

But Ohio is definetly in play. Gore lost by less than 5 points. Also, the Diebold guys idiotic remark could be used against the GOP if dems talk about it enough

[ldoolin]

13. Nevada's in play

Clark County carries the Nevada vote and Clark County votes Democratic. Whether we win Nevada always depends on whether the Clark County turnout is heavy enough to offset the heavily Republican votes from the rest of the state.

[Selwynn]

7. I think Clark though I'll supprt Dean if nominated - reasons:

I think Clark is less easy to paint as a leftist ivy-league out of touch elitist liberal (I am NOT, not not saying Dean really is those things) even though, ironically, on some issues I think Clark is actually left of Dean. I think Security will be a big campaign issue and I think Clark stacks up better there. I think Clark has more southern appeal as well.

But.. I could be wrong about every single item.

[trogdor]

9. Well, somebody needs to show the rest of the country...

...what Vermont is all about. Cows. Lots and lots of cows. Kinda like upstate New York. Nothing Ivy League about it, although I don't know enough about the Ivy League to know if any of the schools are in Vermont. We have a baby-Ivy in our village, and Clinton, NY, is about as folksy as it gets.

I think the closest this part of the country gets to uppity is in October when yuppies in Subaru Outbacks drive up to watch the leaves change color (they're really beautiful). That's it.

Oh yeah. Vermont cheese rules!

[Bombtrack]

11. Dean is a Manhattan/Hamptons blue blood

And Vermont is about the worst state a dem could represent as a launching pad for the presidency

[boxster]

12. Except for maybe South Dakota!

;-)

About the same number of people as Vermont, way more land mass, obviously. Way more conservative, as well.

Kind of amazing that they currently have 2 Democratic Senators (SD, not VT). And, they'll be without a member of the House when Janklow resigns - until the special election elects an interim member.

[boxster]

14. Self-serving kick.

For the late folks.

I guess everyone is more interested in talking about who's bashing whom and why.

[frustrated_lefty]

15. Louisiana

Dean has been talking about job growth and how he would accomplish it. The unemployment rate is New Orleans for working age adults is roughly 50%. I think Dean could do well in Louisiana. Clark may be able to make the same case, but I'm more convinced Dean would do the job. In either case, Louisiana is up for grabs.

[boxster]

16. I think Mary Landrieu's win was a good sign for Dems in LA in '04.

I think it says a lot that she won a race where the Bush Admin threw millions into ads, etc.

Wow, unemployment sounds like an enormous problem there. And to think that the media and Bush would have us believe that a big economic turnaround is happening. Yeah, maybe for Halliburton!