Skip to main content

View Diary: Why Dean can win without the South (321 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Re: Why Dean can win without the South (4.00)
    Kos, you're cheating.

    Ahem...TEXAS???????????????????  They don't count as part of the South?

    And you balance 3 blue states from both coasts and against your collection of red states?

    Seems like you're just randomly selecting red and blue states in order to balance electoral votes and give the Dems a slight edge.  I can do that too:

    Let's look at it another way: I count 18 electoral votes in what I would consider the "solid Red" mountain west states-- AK, ID, UT, WY and MT. For argument's sake, I'll throw in CO (winnable for the Dems), for a total of 27 electoral votes.

    Now take the equally solid blue states NJ and MA, and we get 29 electoral votes. Gore didn't spend much on those two very expensive states, and neither will Dean (or Clark).

    Here's another:

    Let's look at it another way: I count 5 electoral votes in what I would consider the "solid Red" plains states with decent college football teams-- NE.

    Now take the equally solid blue state CT, and we get 7 electoral votes. Gore didn't spend much on that very expensive states, and neither will Dean (or Clark).

    •  Re: Why Dean can win without the South (none)
      Yeah, I actually forgot Texas. Mea culpa on that one. But still, of course I'm cherrypicking states. That's the point.

      People point to the South as though it's the end all of electability, when clearly it can be balanced out elsewhere.

      If you want to talk solid bases, I come up with a 183-172 edge for Democrats.

      Solid Democrats
      CA, CT, DC, DE, HI, IL, MA, MD, ME, NJ, NY, RI, VT and WA

      Solid Republicans
      AK, AL, GA, ID, IN, KS, KY, MS, MT, NC, NE, ND, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA and WY

      Swing
      AR, AZ, CO, FL, IA, LA, MI, MN, MO, NH, NM, NV, OH, OR, PA and WV

      •  Re: Why Dean can win without the South (none)
        Yeah, I did a similar thing as you and got 189-187 in favor of the Democrats.  However, that includes MI as safe Dem, WA as swing, and AR and LA as safe Rep.

        Considering all four of those as swing states gives us a 172-172 tie.

        The problem is that the "weakest" of these solid blue states are probably CA and ME, and are probably closer to swing status than the "weakest" of the red states, TN and VA.

        But the point you made that the solid "blue" states are much more expensive to campaign in than the solid "red" states is one that could work to our advantage.

        Incidentally, the electoral college calculator link on the main page doesn't seem to work.  Here's another one:

        http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/PE2004/CAMPAIGN/evcalc4.php

        •  Re: Why Dean can win without the South (none)
          As a lifelong resident (34 years), I can say without doubt that WA is not a swing state.

          Republicans do well statewide here only when they are socially middle of the road. It's true that there's a huge religious right influence here, but their candidates don't win. Only moderate Republicans win.

          Republicans running for president did win Washington in the elections between 1972 and 1984, but that's because there were still liberal Republicans in the party and it didn't have the well-earned right-wing reputation that it has now.

          The most influential conservative in the state is initiative king Tim Eyman. He's popular because he's an anti-tax populist.

          Unless and until the Republicans resurrect their liberal wing nationally, they're not going to win Washington. That's especially true if Dean is the candidate, as his fiscal conservatism and moderate view on guns will blunt Bush's advantages in Eastern Washington, and he's got the urban Puget Sound locked up.

      •  WI (none)
        Now you've left out Wisconsin! ;) Based on last election and current state legislature, still a swing state.
      •  Re: Why Dean can win without the South (none)
        Virginia could be in play.  We have a Dem governor who managed to win just weeks after 9/11, with a campaign that included "sportsmen for Warner."

        While Virginia hasn't given her electoral votes to a Dem since LBJ, this may be the time.  I know that there are plenty of Dean Democrats pledging to make that a reality.

        When the going gets tough, the tough shop to drop bush

        by anybodybutbush on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 06:59:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Re: Why Dean can win without the South (none)
          Yes, and Bush only took Virginia by 8 points, while Gore took California by 12.  Since then, we've elected a Dem governor; they have Der Gropenfuhrer.

          Folks, Clinton only lost Virginia to Dole by 4 points, and of course he didn't lift a finger here.  It bears repeating that our Gore + Nader vote was 47%, equal to WV's and AR's, one point better than LA's, and four points better than in NC, SC, GA, AL, MS, and KY.

          Also, to back up my snipe-huntin' buddy Phil, Virginia was the first state in any region to elect a black man governor.

          I've seen conversations here where people wonder if Montana or Oklahoma could be in play in 2004.  Their Gore + Nader votes were 40% and 38%, respectively.  Hell, we talk all the time around here about turning Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado into battlegrounds.  They each had G+N votes of 48%.  And just like Virginia, they're trending Democratic.

          As others have said, the beauty of Dean's 50-state strategy is that his grassroots has the power to fight hard for every battleground state.  And even in states that will be safely red for Bush, supporters will be inspired to fight for down-ticket candidates, to write letters to voters in other states, to canvass in other states, etc.

          •  Re: Why Dean can win without the South (none)
            And Clinton actually won Montana in 1992.  Granted, Perot had a lot to do with it, and Dole won it in 1996.

            But I've met some ueber-liberal people here in San Francisco who have given up on the expensive housing prices here in CA and are moving to Montana.  Could be the equivalent of Marin County in a few years.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site