Fantastic election map on Edwards site

[DemDogs]

It's an interactive map where you can calculate how to win in 2004. And in the "Trends" overlay of the map you can find out a lot of handy facts about each state. This is really terrific. Check it out.
<http://www.johnedwards2004.com/map/>

[CMT]

1. that is a neat map

since it was Edward's site I gave him North Carolina and West Virginia and of course he beats that Schrub.

[dsc]

2. Would you please tell him to change

Democrat to Democratic? That literally sets my teeth on edge. It is positively scary how sucessful the right has been in getting Democrat accepted as an adjective. The map is sweet though but I don't like the numbers in the map as it appears when you load his site. We need to change that.

[DemDogs]

4. I hadn't noticed

But I think that is it means "voted for the Democrat" and "voted for the Republican" but if it bothers you still, you should email them or post something about it on their blog. <http://blog.johnedwards2004.com/>

[dsc]

6. Ok that I can accept

I know it sounds picky but I would have brought this up about Dean. I just don't like the fact that that Republican contructions took off like it did.

[leyton]

9. A much bigger mistake...

I think there is another bigger mistake here. Democrats, if I remember, took 267 electoral votes in 2000, not 260. This map uses the current electoral apportionment and doesn't take into account the recent census & reapportionment.

[DemDogs]

14. It does use 2004 reapportionment

You can see NC has 15 which is up one. On the trends map it tells which states are up or down. (Gore would not have won with just adding NH under new apportionment.)

[AP]

26. I think Democrats are appropriating "Democrat" to take the negative

implications away.

I've seen a couple Dems do this recently.

[FlashHarry]

3. Cool. All we need is Missouri!

[Lefty48197]

19. Missouri will win it all for us

Gephardt on the ticket should pull it off.

[West Coast Democrat]

5. I love these maps

It looks very possible to win in 2004, even if we lose Florida. I think we will definitely win NH next year, and we'll pick up a few other small states such as NC (if Edwards is on the ticket), WV perhaps NV and even LA.

[Sean Reynolds]

7. Again, WE do NOT need the South to win!

Just win Democratic states and we'll be JUST fine! We take Arizona and the Dems are in control!

[Padraig18]

10. Yeah, BUT...

... wouldn't it be nice to rip a few of them away from the "R" column for the future? I mean, that's been the Repukes whole strategy for 3 decades; it might leave them WITHOUT a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of, if we broke their stranglehold on the South. :hi:

[Sean Reynolds]

11. No doubt. BUT we can win without the south.

IMO I think the Dem will win Florida and I believe Dean has a good shot at doing well in the south.

In 2004 the Repubs will be crying the elector college isn't fair.

[DemDogs]

15. Close midwestern states

Think about the narrow margins in Iowa, Wisconsin, New Mexico and think again. GWB has lived in these states he narrowly lost. If you want to bet on no margin for error and if you don't care about ever winning back the House and the Senate, then you can nominate a candidate who will lose the whole South.
But no Democratic candidate has EVER won without Southern states, and I am not willing to take a chance that 2004 will be the first time ever. Let's win in the South!

[Sean Reynolds]

16. Which candidate(s) do you think CAN win the south?

[Padraig18]

17. As I've said before...

I think any of our top-tier candidates could win parts of the South. The South is not thoroughly repuke from top to bottom--- it's split. Southerners care about issues like health care, decent schools, the economy, etc., just like everyone else. What we have to do is quit shoving some of our PC/third-rail issues in their faces, like additional gun-control, etc.

[dolstein]

20. Clark, yes. Edwards, yes. Who else did you have in mind?

Gephardt could conceivably carry Missouri. Lieberman could conceivably carry Florida. I don't see what Southern state Dean could carry, though. I think his A rating from the NRA will carry a lot less weight with Southern voters that his supporters think. Same thing with Kerry -- his war record isn't going to help him much. Southern roots count for a lot more than a pro-gun stance or a distinguished war record. Bill Clinton, a certified draft dodger and no friend of the NRA, carried states in the South against George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole, certified war heroes.

[VermontDem2004]

30. Oh southern roots really helped out Gore in the south

:eyes:

[dsc]

32. He also won by nearly 6% nationally

which made a pretty big difference.

Here is a comparison of Bush v Dukakis 88, Bush v Clinton 92, and Bush v Gore 00 in the only five southern states Clinton won.

Bush v Dukakis nationally 53.4 to 45.6 (-7.8)
St B D dif difference from national margin
Ark 56 42 -14 -6.2
GA 60 40 -20 -12.2
LA 54 44 -10 -2.2
TN 58 42 -16 -8.2
FL 61 39 -22 -14.2

Bush v Clinton nationally 43.0 to 37.4 (5.6)
St B C dif difference from national
Ark 35.5 53.4 16.7 11.1
GA 42.9 43.5 0.6 -5.0
LA 41.0 45.8 4.8 -0.8
TN 42.4 47.1 4.7 -0.9
FL 40.9 39.0 -1.9 -7.5

Bush v Gore nationally 47.9 to 48.4 (0.5)
St B G dif difference from national
Ark 51.3 45.9 -5.4 -5.9
GA 55.0 43.2 -11.8 -12.3
LA 52.8 44.9 -7.9 -8.4
TN 51.2 47.3 -3.9 -4.4
FL 48.85 48.84 -0.01 -0.51

This is a rather astonishingly stark set of stats. Clinton, who did win some southern states, did significantly worse in them then he did nationally with three exceptions. His home state, his running mate's home state, and Lousiana. Even more starkly Dukakis actually did better in a relative sense in Lousiana than Gore did. He is within a very small distance of Gore in both Georgia and Arkansas as well. I think the lesson of the 1990's in regards to the South is that it is good to win by 6 points not that we need a Southerner. It is hard looking at these numbers to see how Gore's being a Southerner helped at all. I don't see any of our candidates winning by 6% and if Clinton's margin had been say 2% he would have lost Georgia had it been 1% he would have barely won LA and TN. Those margins are way more realistic than the 6% that Clinton won by.

[DemDogs]

21. You're not FROM the South then (n/t)

[peaceandjustice]

24. nominate Andrew Young for VP and increase African American turnout

and we could pick up Georgia, Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina with any of the tp-tier candidates.

[jiacinto]

12. Not true

Yes it's "technically" possible but that would mean winning holding all the Gore states, plus winning either NH, WV, or NV.

Everything else would have to fall into place exactly for it to happen!

[Sean Reynolds]

13. Again, I think we'll take Florida.

We'll have a good shot at New Hampshire as well as Arizona and Colorado.

[DemDogs]

18. Winning Gore states +NH not enough

after reapportionment.

[9119495]

23. Finally somebody agrees with me.

Its the electoral votes that count. I seem to remember this was an issue in a recent election somewhere.

[Padraig18]

8. That is COOL!

I played with it, and if we could change either AZ or MO to blue this time, we'd win. :)

[dusty64]

22. Yikes, I figured

NH and WV would go to the Democrat and its a freakin tie 269 to 269. I do think more states than that will go blue, but wonder if the extreme court would get to choose again in that scenario. I like the fact Florida is a ? for 2000, even though I am SURE that Gore won. Wonder why its red for 2004.

[Rooktoven]

25. Great Map

Good strategic thinking

[Ediacara]

27. very cute

The fact that the 2000 map has a big question mark on top of Florida has made me warm up ever-so-slightly to Edwards LOL

[ProfessorPlum]

28. Someone should draw a map with the area of each state

proportional to its relative number of electoral votes. THEN paint them red or blue and put that on a T-shirt.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

29. wow. I just came up with a very possible electoral tie!

every Gore state plus NH and WV = 269/269 could happen, could very well happen.

BTW Ha ha! I love Florida 2000 = "?"

[DemDogs]

31. That's the tough part

With redistricting we have to win more states AND the Rs will challenge in states Gore won by narrow margins. We all know Florida will be a battleground, but so will Iowa and Wisconsin and New Mexico. I'll say it again: need some Southern states. We can't keep giving them all away. We NEVER win without them.