Florida is Bush country

Much as I hate to admit it, it appears increasingly likely that Florida is Bush country and will stay that way.

Despite constant Democratic attacks and drooping nationwide ratings, President Bush fares well in Florida, the pivotal state that just barely put him in the White House three years ago.

A poll last week of 600 likely Florida voters found that 58 percent had a favorable opinion of George W. Bush. The survey was conducted by Research 2000 for the South Florida Sun-Sentinel and the Florida Times-Union.

Asked to choose between the president and his likely Democratic challenger, Florida voters favored Bush over John Kerry by 47 percent to 42 percent. Bush held a slightly wider lead over Democratic candidate John Edwards, 49 percent to 41 percent.

Yes, I know it's too early to take this polls too seriously, but they mean something. Remember that Bush is now trailing Kerry in several swing states, including Arizona, Michigan, MInnesota, and Pennsylvania. As Bush's national numbers plummet, so do his numbers in many states.

Yet Florida appears to be immune to those national trends.

There are plenty of pickup opportunities for the Dems this time around. Florida just doesn't appear to be one of them.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 01:29 PM PST.

(Load) (Load) (Load) (Load) (Load) (Load) (Load)

(Load)

Comment Preferences

196 comments | Permalink

ANY state is a swing state (none)

Dont forget that there is nothing particularly magic about Florida. ANY state could be a swing state because the margin of victory was so small that all we need is for one state to change columns for the election to go the other way. And the list of possible candidates for that state is pretty long. Sure I would like Florida, but Ohio wouldnt be bad either. Or any of a number of others

Steven Kyle

by sck5 on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 01:34:22 PM PST

defense and national security (none)

i think you're right -- what's magic about florida now, may not be so magic by November but on the other hand....
apparently those polled in florida make defense and national security issues much bigger priorities than do voters nationally, where currently kerry has a slight lead.
two points:
1)
this does not bode well for Democrats at all in november, and not just in florida, particularly given the many surprise scenarios -- like another crisis or Karl Rove pulling bin laden from a rabbit hole in say, august.
2)
IMO this poll adds fuel to argument for Clark as VP -- we can only hope to neutralize Bush's advantage on security and defense -- but if it happens, democrats might win.

by markymarx on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 02:27:13 PM PST

[ Parent ]

It's Over: Bush will dump Cheney for Guliani (2.50)

We might as well unplug the laptops, pack the U-Haul and move to Canada for the next 4 years.
The only way Clark helps the slaughter Kerry has awaiting him is by turning over his delegates to the General at the convention.

A progressive Illinois Democrat who would be the only African-American member of the US Senate: Support Obama on 3/16

by DWCG on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 03:24:31 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Dump Cheney? (none)

Ain't going to happen. Especially for Giuliani. Talk about losing your base. And it's not the Bush mentality anyway.
If Kerry gets slaughtered, any Democrat would have lost. This election will be a referendum on Bush (thank God).

"Liberals are like dogs: ..." - E. B. White

by Blue the Wild Dog on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 03:28:44 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Huh? (3.50)

"If Kerry gets slaughtered, any Democrat would have lost."
I don't think so. To get clobbered all Kerry has to do is fail to connect with swing voters in OR, NV, AZ, NM, LA, AR, MO, IA, MN, WI, MI, OH, WV, PA, FL, TN, and VA - states the collectively account for 194 electoral votes. Those states are toss-ups and Kerry could lose them all by the smallest of margins giving Bush a 351 to 187 victory in the Electoral College. And if you don't think that's possible, I submit to you a 20-year voting record, enough inconsistencies and character issues to fill a mack truck, and 250 million dollars to suggest otherwise.
The bottom line is, those voters that will determine whether Missouri finishes 51-49 Bush or 51-49 Kerry, likely would be more persuaded by a candidate with less baggage, who is more personable and would have been spending more time campaigning than criss-crossing the country trying to raise money...among other things.

A progressive Illinois Democrat who would be the only African-American member of the US Senate: Support Obama on 3/16

by DWCG on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 04:38:09 PM PST

[ Parent ]

I question some of your assumptions (none)

and I stick to my guns that, if Kerry gets "slaughtered", then, for all values of slaughtered, generic Democrat would have lost. The odds of the scenario you conjure up are exceedingly small.
Assumptions - Kerry does have some pluses, you know, and I'm not even a Kerry supporter.

"Liberals are like dogs: ..." - E. B. White

by Blue the Wild Dog on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 04:52:44 PM PST

[ Parent ]

C'mon (none)

Whatever pluses he has, they are far outweighed by his minuses. And I fail to see the positives he has that Clark or Edwards don't.

A progressive Illinois Democrat who would be the only African-American member of the US Senate: Support Obama on 3/16

by DWCG on Tue Mar 02, 2004 at 12:18:33 AM PST

[ Parent ]

aoeu (none)

If Kerry wins VA it will be a landslide victory.

What can't we face if we're together? What's in this place that we can't weather? Apocalypse? We've all been there. The same old trips. Why should we care?

by TealVeal on Tue Mar 02, 2004 at 04:26:31 AM PST

[ Parent ]

Good point ... (none)

Rudy Guliani is a great hero in many people's eyes. Sure, I think he is corrupt as the day is long. But he is very popular. Cheney isn't. He is an anvil to Bush in a sinking lifeboat. They have to dump him in order to survive. Unless John Kerry chokes - which is entirely possible.

Politizine: Random musings about politics, music and modern times.

by radiotony on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 11:16:00 PM PST

[ Parent ]

corruption (none)

I think that the biggest problem in Florida isn't that the people can't be convinced to vote Dem, it's that the system is thoroughly corrupt- the Republicans are completely in charge of everything that matters, and were very successful last time in skewing things in favor of Bush. A little de-registration of black people, a little screwy ballot, a lotta Jeb Bush and some Diebold machines, and they should be all set.
It would be easier to swing a state with an infrastructure less committed to re-electing Bushco at any cost.

by kate mckinnon on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 03:59:52 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Ralph Reed and FL (none)

I made this comment elsewhere, but I think it bears repeating.
We've had discussions on this list about how Bush has spent the $40M he has spent so far on his re-election (it's probably higher by now).
One of the most tangible things I've heard about that the Bush campaign has done is Ralph Reed setting up a "grassroots" network in FL. My understanding is that the goal was to bypass mass media in communicating to a large number of Bush's base, presumably using language and topics that would be unacceptable in the mass media.
I suspect that, while we have seen no evidence of these efforts, they are very likely having a noticiable effect. That is, it may be that Bush has been paying for a saturation level campaign in FL, but in media that we're not going to see. And that saturation coverage has done what it was designed to, make sure that FL stays in Bush's back pocket in the next election.

by emptywheel on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 01:37:01 PM PST

Good point. (none)

Didn't Ralph Reed head the Georgia state campaigns in 2002? Those went very Republican. If he's in Florida now, we can expect the dems to take a hit.

by Andrew S on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 03:50:09 PM PST

[ Parent ]
Life in Florida (none)

If that is happening, I haven't seen it yet here in Tampa.
The thing I've noticed most is that there is just a general lack of interest in or knowledge of the presidentail election.
None of the candidates are campaigning much here yet, including Bush.
I imagine if you checked on how the Dems do against Bush in states where they've already voted or are about to vote you would find that the dems do much better than in states where no campaigning has been done. It's just a matter of timing. In that respect I hope Edwards survives until March 9th so that the media here will spend a little time looking at the Dem candidates.

by gdesignr on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 05:15:19 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Two comments (none)

First, you might not get a close look at the D candidates one way or another. They did very little campaigning here in MI, not least because it was really expensive.
Second, I don't know what Reed's "grassroots" entails. But my impression was it was designed to be very targeted. So it's not clear that you would see it if, for example, you weren't a known republican voter and/or a member of an evangelical church. It was a direct mail/email kind of thing, not a broadcast kind of thing.

by emptywheel on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 06:33:47 PM PST

[ Parent ]

I'd much rather see Ohio fall (none)

than Florida although the fact that it is jeb's corrupt state and was the reason for the last election resulting in the way it did it is only a psychological victory. Let chimpy get florida so long as we get the other 49.

by jackemoe on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 01:37:25 PM PST

I'd rather not ... (none)

If Ohio falls - with its hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs lost - it is bad news for the Democrats altogether. Ohio should be solidly in the Democrats corner, even with the stupid social war that the Republicans are revving up. That state has been decimated over the last 11 years by job losses.
Of course, the Democrats are on the verge of nominating a free trade Democrat who voted with the President Bush on some of his least popular policy proposals - the Iraq invasion, NCLB, the PATRIOT Act, etc. ad nauseum. So, who knows.

Politizine: Random musings about politics, music and modern times.

by radiotony on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 11:22:50 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Florida (none)

I wonder if the state democratic party gives the appearance of harping on the 2000 recount, thus turning off non-Democrats who want to move forward.

Check out my blog if you like discussion of the Middle East and other random topics.

by Brian Ulrich on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 01:37:26 PM PST

qwerty (none)

As someone on the ground in the Sunshine State, I can tell you that this is not the problem.
The problem is that the state Democratic Party gives very little appearance at all.
It's not as bad as it used to be, and it's probably not as bad as, say, Ohio's party structure. But the Republicans are the organized ones here. Not us.

"I'm sorry, Biff, but I just can't relate to you. You see, I'm a penguin, and you're a moron." - TMW

by Senor Biggles on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 05:16:46 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Agreed (none)

The Florida Democratic Party appears to be completely incompetent. I have tried to get their attention before on some issues, and no one will even answer your emails.
Local county-level DECs, at least the ones I know of, are poorly organized and very timid.

~Liberal in the best sense of the word~

by Lucky Ducky on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 06:56:52 PM PST

[ Parent ]

They do know how to stuff ballot boxes! (none)

Florida Democrats have been able to stuff ballot boxes a number of times in order to win elections so they can't be completely incompetent! If you have never read "Vote Scam," you should.

Politizine: Random musings about politics, music and modern times.

by radiotony on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 11:24:58 PM PST

[ Parent ]

So how come.... (none)

Gore split the votes last time? Some kind of fluke?

Alan, Maverick Leftist More On "Why Dean Lost"

by SlackerInc on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 11:07:16 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Seeing beyond revenge (none)

I wonder how much Dem's obsession with Jeb hurt us nationally in 2002.
I do think we can win FL for Kerry, if we can hit the Medicare and "cut SS to fund rich people," but I won't obsess over the state. I also wouldn't put Graham on the ticket in hopes of getting FL.

by veganpa on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 01:38:28 PM PST

So the democrats should lie to people about (1.42)

social security to try to win Florida?

by Kansas City Show Me on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 01:53:18 PM PST

[ Parent ]

not really a lie this year (none)

I too am disappointed that Democrats also lie about the stability of social security in order to scare the elderly into voting for them, but this might be a legitimate campaign issue this year. Remember, Greenspan just came out in favor of either raising the retirement age or cutting benefits because of projected deficits. This issue goes away when we cancel Bush's tax cuts -- which are for the rich.

People are terrible. They can bear anything.

by soulfrieda on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 01:58:08 PM PST

[ Parent ]

I'm getting tired of... (3.66)

the Dems letting the Rethugs 'Frame' our concern over Social Security as 'We are scaring old people'.
That is not the issue at all. Social Security is safe for older people.
The Real Issue is the stability of Social Secutity for the Baby Boomers. This is a much larger voting demographic that the current SS recipients. These are the people who we should be talking to and we should laugh at the Rethugs when then try to Frame the issue as anything else.
I am surprised that none of the candidates is addressing how he will save SS from the certain path it is on if something is not done. It is this apathy over the years that has got us into the situation we are in now.
Where are you Robert Rubin?

by talex on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 02:14:37 PM PST

[ Parent ]

It should be framed this way (none)

Alan Greenspan recently came out in favor of cutting Social Security benefits to pay for the Bush tax cut.

New Century Democrats. Those are people who are SINCERELY Socially progressive, fiscally conservative, and are for reeling in Corporate special interests. A.T.

by No One No Where on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 03:57:53 PM PST

[ Parent ]

I don't think there is any relationship between (1.75)

tax cuts and social security, because social security is not funded through general tax revenue. Both sides will avoid the truth about social security in the election campaign. It is just a matter of how much each side will lie about it.

by Kansas City Show Me on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 02:46:23 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Check out "Perfectly Legal" (none)

and then come back and try to make your same statement again. That GOP rusty bucket that "there is no relationship between tax cuts and SSI" is practically a sieve, but as long as the GOP keeps winning the debate that such a relationship doesn't exist, they will continue to steal SSI monies as they have since 1983.

by Marie on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 03:00:23 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Perfectly Legal (none)

Should be required reading.
The challenge for the Democratic nominee will be to translate David Clay Johnston's arguments and evidence in Perfectly Legal into a language average voters can understand.

~Liberal in the best sense of the word~

by Lucky Ducky on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 03:05:10 PM PST

[ Parent ]

There isn't, eh? (none)

There is an excellent discussion of the Social Security issue at Rob Salkowitz' most excellent blog, Emphasis Added (which everyone should bookmark), which might cause you to consider your statement a little more deeply.

"Lash those conservatives and traitors with the pen of gall and wormwood -- let them feel -- no temporising!" -- Andrew Jackson to Francis Preston Blair, 1837

by Ivan on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 03:35:35 PM PST

[ Parent ]

They could tell the truth ... (none)

but then they would have to admit that both parties have stolen $2.6 Trillion in Social Security surpluses and spent them on social programs and billions of dollars in weapons systems. In return, they left IOUs. Oh, but they couldn't do that because then they would probably lose votes.

Politizine: Random musings about politics, music and modern times.

by radiotony on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 11:29:02 PM PST

[ Parent ]

If you do that... (none)

...you also have to pre-empt the GOoPers' favorite line about Democrats "scaring" seniors. Something like "The Republicans would like to tell you we're planning to scare the life out of you about your Social Security benefits. We'd like to tell you, you should be scared."
All while showing newspaper clips and quotes from prominent Bush admin. people talking about how they want to screw with SS.

What did we do to deserve George W. Bush?

by republicans are idiots on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 01:58:47 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Too early to tell (none)

There could be any number of reasons why Kerry is lagging a bit compared to national trends in Florida at this particular point. I don't know of any demographic changes that would rule out Florida from being significantly different than 2000. So I wouldn't concede Florida just yet.

"Liberals are like dogs: ..." - E. B. White

by Blue the Wild Dog on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 01:38:57 PM PST
Forget Florida (3.75)

Ohio is the new Florida.

by chimperor on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 01:39:35 PM PST

We need Ohio or Florida. (none)

I'm not sure which one we can get, but without both of those a Democratic nominee faces a nearly impossible task. Ohio is more congruent with the rest of the Democratic coalition, but Florida was very close in 2000 and it is hard to see that it has swung so far. Was Lieberman or Gore so much more attractive than Kerry in Florida? Perhaps.
If Florida really is Bush territory, than the VP needs to be chosen to win Ohio votes (and no that does not mean Kucinich) and not Southern states. John Glenn for VP maybe?

by ohwilleke on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 01:50:45 PM PST

[ Parent ]

John Glenn Is Too Old (none)

John Glenn for VP maybe?
John Glenn? That guy who will be 83 by the election? I don't think so ...
I think Gephardt might be useful in Ohio (and in some other states).

by Collideascope on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 02:21:09 PM PST

[ Parent ]

A Kerry Gephardt ticket (none)

Would be unthinkable for me. Hopefully that will not be the case come November.

New Century Democrats. Those are people who are SINCERELY Socially progressive, fiscally conservative, and are for reeling in Corporate special interests. A.T.

by No One No Where on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 03:49:42 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Gephardt (none)

I don't like Gephardt, period. But I don't confuse my preferences with reality. And the reality is that Gephartd would be useful in Missouri as well as the rust-belt/blue-collar states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virgina.

by Collideascope on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 05:23:04 PM PST

[ Parent ]

They key phrase is (none)

"...unthinkable for me."
Your mileage/reality may vary. Having a Kerry/Gephardt ticket would be enough to kick me to the curb as a Democrat. It would be a choice that epitomizes everything that disgusts me about my party.

New Century Democrats. Those are people who are SINCERELY Socially progressive, fiscally conservative, and are for reeling in Corporate special interests. A.T.

by No One No Where on Wed Mar 03, 2004 at 12:22:35 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Lookin' for a VP? (none)

Michael Coleman is a popular and smart Mayor of Columbus. He also happens to be black.
Kerry already has the war-hero thing wrapped up. How about a VP who works day in and day out with the workin' folks of the Nation's 15th largest city?
His status as an Africian American well liked by both blacks and whites would be a huge bonus.

by DeanorBust on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 03:00:52 PM PST

[ Parent ]

What about Kucinich (none)

...that was a joke of course.

A progressive Illinois Democrat who would be the only African-American member of the US Senate: Support Obama on 3/16

by DWCG on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 03:28:59 PM PST

[ Parent ]
no big city mayors, please (none)

Given how large states tend to feel about the mayors of their largest cities (Giuliani being an exception), would he even guarantee Ohio? --If he wins a Senate seat, or the Governor's office (shoutout to Ed Rendell), then we'll talk. I'm glad he's a good mayor, though.

by pangolin on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 03:33:03 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Good point... (none)

Perhaps in 2012.
He is a young guy.

by DeanorBust on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 04:53:39 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Yeah THAT will work-- NOT!!! (1.50)

so the #1 liberal senatOr in the country selects Black man from a small city in OHIO with NO national exposure.... to convince Independents to vote for kerry?
GOOD Plan.... NOT ....

"Obviously we are dealing with limited mentalities" -- Daffy Duck

by wxdave on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 03:34:18 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Columbus (none)

Obviously, you have never been there. It is actually the largest city in Ohio. Columbus metro has something like 1.5 million. Also, I think Coleman is a DLC type.
However, I tend to agree that Coleman would not be a good pick.
Ben P

Benjamin Disraeli + Robert LaFollette = Ben P

by Ben P on Tue Mar 02, 2004 at 03:21:51 AM PST

[ Parent ]

VP nominees don't normally carry much weight ... (none)

... with voters. Past performances also show that, more often than not, the #2 guy (or gal) is more likely to be an electoral drag on that ticket than an asset (See "Quayle, Dan", "Eagleton, Thomas", and currently "Cheney, Dick").
The only fairly recent vice presidential candidate (in the last 50 years or so) that provided a discernable lift to his ticket was Sen. Lyndon Johnson of Texas. Solely because Sen. John Kennedy chose his chief rival for the 1960 presidential nomination as his running mate, were the Democrats able to carry Texas.
The only potential #2 choice in the Democratic Party that I can think of right now, who could potentially have an electoral impact like LBJ, would be New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson. He's genuinely popular amongst Democrats in general -- especially in the southwest (NM, AZ, CO, NV) -- and his addition could certainly wouldn't hurt Democrats with Hispanic voters, which is the fastest growing voter demographic in the country.
Anyone else have any other suggestions? This might be a good topic for discussion.

by Donald Koelper on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 05:02:43 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Why not Arizona or Missouri? (none)

Why is it a "nearly impossible task" to win without Florida or Ohio? It would also be sufficient for victory to win the Gore states plus Arizona (in which a recent poll showed Kerry leading), or the Gore states plus Missouri (a traditional swing state that seemed to like Kerry in the primary). Or to win the Gore states plus Nevada, New Hampshire, and any other state no matter how small-- perhaps Arkansas if Clark is on the ticket, or NC if Edwards is, or West Virginia if we can get them to return to their recent-historical roots.
Even after the 2000 Census, the states Gore won (not counting Florida) have 260 electoral votes, so we only need to add at least 10 EVs to win. (Adding 9 EVs would tie, kicking off a complicated 12th Amendment process where the odds would be against us but we'd still have a chance.) That's not such a Herculean task as to require winning one of the two really big swing states that Bush got in 2000; smaller ones will do. I agree that it'd be good if we could win Florida or Ohio, but it's not necessarily a disaster if we don't.

by David on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 03:36:19 PM PST

[ Parent ]

NH and Nevada are too small to matter. (none)

Obviously, they aren't the only mathematically possible states, but I would expect Missouri to go blue well after either Florida or Ohio do. I don't think Clark or Edwards would swing Arkansas (Clark is from there, but it is your home state political machine and not your home state identity that swings states, and he doesn't have a home state political machine since he didn't come from politics). NC is also a real long shot for Dems even with Edwards.
Could Arizona, NH, and NM do it? Maybe. But, Florida and Ohio were so much closer last time, that this seems a somewhat less likely alternative. If both Florida and Ohio go to Bush the margin for error anywhere else is very, very slim.

by ohwilleke on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 03:47:14 PM PST

[ Parent ]

I disagree. This year, EVERY state matters ... (none)

... because George W. Bush only won the Electoral College by four votes, 271-267. (OK, I fully realize that he didn't really "win" -- but that's neither here nor there at this point).
Had Al Gore put any real effort into securing New Hampshire's five electoral votes after the 2000 primary, we wouldn't be having all these discussions about how we're going to get rid of Bush. New Hampshire was the only state northeast of the Mason-Dixon line that went for Bush and the GOP -- and not by all that much at that.
And let's remember that in 2000 most people -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- didn't realize that Florida was in play until late in the ball game. Everyone had previously assumed it would go to Bush, because his brother was governor. And ironically, it was probably Gore's choice of Joe Lieberman as his running mate that put Florida up for grabs.

by Donald Koelper on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 05:17:00 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Four Electoral Votes ... (none)

New Hampshire only has 4 Electoral Votes.
The national Democrats did put in an effort here but it was so negative it repulsed most voters. Lots of color flyers about back alley abortions and closed factories - even though Democrats are just as much to blame for closed factories.
The governor was able to barely win but their congressional candidates were destroyed. Gore lost by 7,000 votes while 6 percent of registered Democrats and 17 percent of Clinton voters went with Bush.

Politizine: Random musings about politics, music and modern times.

by radiotony on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 11:37:51 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Actually... (none)

North Carolina is possible with John Edwards; a poll released last week actually had him beating Dub--for the first time--in his hoome state. Same for Clark with Arkansas.
But We've got to concentrate on states uher than ones Al Gor carried last time; I'd like to think that we could expand on our base; after all, that was the whole problem--the "state-by-state" aspect wasn't emphasized enough.

"Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it."--Miguel De Santa Anna

by GainesT1958 on Tue Mar 02, 2004 at 01:20:16 AM PST

[ Parent ]

I think Missouri is even more GOP than Florida.... (none)

it will be a tough state to win. Arizona on the other hand seems possible, as does Ohio.
a 269-269 tie I think dooms us, as not only do Republicans have a House majority, but I believe the House delgation is recorded on a state-by state basis (i,e- California's delegation gets to cast one vote as does Wyoming's--clearly the GOP would have the edge in way too many states.)

The conflict over gay marriage was begun on the timing and terms of others. It will end in a way, and at an hour, of our choosing. Culture War? Bring it on!

by Keith Brekhus on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 04:14:40 PM PST

[ Parent ]

House Selecting The President (none)

In selecting the President in the case that no one obtains an Electoral College majority it is indeed accomplished with each House state delegation receiving 1 vote. In 2000, Bush would have easily won such an election, assuming all House members voted with their party. Still, it would be interesting seeing some House members have to choose between voting for the candidate of their party, and voting the way their state/district voted. Also, such a vote would not take place until the 109th Congress takes office in early January 2005, which will change the House makeup.
Further, remember that when the House selects the President, a majority of state delegations (ie, 26 out of 50) is required to choose the President. And what about states whose delegation is evenly split, like Minnesota (with 4 Democrats and 4 Republicans)? They would cast no vote. So you could well have a case where the House is unable to select a President.
But the Senate chooses the Vice President, and by simple plurality vote. So as soon as that Vice President was sworn in on January 20, 2005, he would then take the oath of office as President, that office being vacant.

by Collideascope on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 05:52:20 PM PST

[ Parent ]

The Senate VP vote... (none)

actually does have to be by a "majority of the whole number" of Senators, according to the 12th Amendment. So in theory, if the Senate were split 50-50 we'd have something of a constitutional crisis: outgoing VP Cheney might try to break the tie in his favor, but the text of the 12th Amendment suggests that he couldn't (since he's not a Senator), and thus we'd have a double vacancy and the Speaker of the House would act as President.

by David on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 06:44:58 PM PST

[ Parent ]

The Vice President & The Senate (none)

actually does have to be by a "majority of the whole number" of Senators,
Well, since the Senate is limited in its choices to the top 2 recipients of Electoral College votes, there can only be a majority barring a tie, which Vice President Cheney would break.
And there is no reference in Amendment XII to the vote having to consist only of Senators. In fact, the amendment specifically states that the Senate (of which Cheney is a member, not as a Senator but as President of the Senate) will choose the Vice President. The only mention of 'Senators' is when the 2/3rds requirement for the quorum is mentioned. I fully expect that Vice President Cheney, as President of the Senate, would be acting under the Constitution in such a tie-breaking vote, just as I expected that Al Gore would have been equally proper in acting in such a regard in 2000.

by Collideascope on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 10:30:35 PM PST

[ Parent ]

The quote I was thinking of... (none)

from the 12th Amendment is the following:
"The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice."
Note the end of that: "a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice." In grammatical context, immediately following the reference to a quorum as "two-thirds of the whole number of Senators", I think that has to mean a majority of the whole number of Senators. You've got the same phrase twice in a row, except that its object is missing the second time; I can't see any other way to interpret that besides seeing it as an deliberate instance of grammatical parallelism where the object is implied the second time around.
And if a "majority of the whole number" of Senators are necessary, it seems to me that that implies the VP cannot break a tie. For one thing, the VP is not a "Senator". I guess you could argue that he's a member of the Senate as its President, but there would be a further problem with that interpretation. As you say, the Senate's choice is only between the top two electoral-vote recipients-- so if the VP could break ties, the phrase "a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice" would seem to be a completely contentless statement of the obvious, and interpretations of the Constitution or a statute that make a part superfluous are disfavored. If the VP can't break ties, then that explains what the phrase is doing there; under your theory, why was it included?

by David on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 10:55:57 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Torturing The Constitution (none)

If the VP can't break ties, then that explains what the phrase is doing there; under your theory, why was it included?
I don't know; that's why we have the USSC, isn't it? Well, it's one reason ...
For example, what if there are more than two choices? For example, what if two candidates tie for second-most electoral votes for Vice President? Such a situation would necessitate a clear requirement for a majority, assuming the Senate was allowed to choose between three individuals, just as with House elections for President.
But, ultimately, the question is how far will the USSC dwell upon each and every word? This debate reminds me of the notion that somehow Bill Clinton is currently eligible to be Vice President based upon a meticulous parsing of Amendments XII and XXII, and completely ignoring the fact that the latter Amendment was enacted to bar two-term Presidents from again holding the office, and allowing a bizarre backdoor into the Presidency for such individuals was the intention of those who passed the Amendment.
We don't run around claiming that the "right to bear arms" allows anyone to possess the forelimbs of ursine mammals and nullifies anti-poaching laws in that regard. Why? Because there isn't a shred of evidence that this was ever the intent of those who wrote and ratified that Amendment.
Similarly, Amendment XII clearly indicates that in certain situations the Vice President is to be chosen by the Senate, and the method by which the Senate chooses individuals is to vote. And as stated elsewhere in the Constitution (Ar. I, Sec. 3) and if they tie the Vice President is to break that tie.
If the Vice President cannot break ties, one wonders why you think the ratifiers of Amendment XII never bothered to explicitly mention that. You're the one arguing that in such a case we can expect the Senate to operate under rules that differ from how it normally operates; the onus is on you to demonstrate that the law compels the Senate to act special in this case. The default position, in the absence of such a demonstration, is to assume that there is no compelling reason to think that the Senate is required to function differently than it normally does, except where this is spelled out.

by Collideascope on Tue Mar 02, 2004 at 02:23:36 PM PST

[ Parent ]

You are correct on the process. (none)

If a state has an even number of House of Representatives members and they tie, it gets no vote. If a majority of House members from the state are Republicans, it will go to Bush. If a majority of House members from the state are Democrats, it will go to the Democrat. By my calculations, therefore, Bush wins a tie vote in the House barring an earth shaking shift in the House of Representatives in favor of Democrats, which isn't going to happen if the race is so close that there is a tie in the electoral college. If the Democrat doesn't win outright in the electoral college, he loses.

by ohwilleke on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 05:58:36 PM PST

[ Parent ]

"Earth shaking shift" is a bit strong... (none)

as a description of what's needed to keep the Republicans under 26 state delegations in the House, though it would take significant gains in the right places.
At the moment, the Republicans have a majority in 30 delegations, the Democrats have a majority in 15, 4 are tied, and South Dakota is vacant. Texas will switch from tied to Republican after the election, though (Jim Turner isn't even running for reelection), so the "real" starting count is 31R, 15D, 3T, 1V. So 6 delegation pickups are needed to deny the Republicans a House majority.
A fair amount of delegations can change control with Democrats wins in House races that are gettable even without the earth shaking, though. Herseth in SD could make the vacancy go D. There are at least 8 states that can plausibly go from R to D: a win in either NM-1 or NM-2 would flip NM, beating Rob Simmons in CT-2 with the help of the Rowland backlash would flip CT, a win in Tauzin's soon-to-be-open seat would flip LA, a win in the evenly-balanced NV-3 would flip NV, winning the open CO-3 and nearly-tied-in-2002 CO-7 would flip CO, wins in the designed-to-be-Democratic GA-11 and GA-12 would flip GA, wins in any two of the three IA districts where Gore and Nader combined got more votes than Bush would flip IA, and beating Chris Chocola and John Hostettler would flip IN. In addition, there are rumors that Cubin in WY might be vulnerable and that Pat Williams may be considering a comeback in MT, though I don't know how accurate those are.
Add to that the possibility of turning Kentucky from R control into a tie if Republican Ann Northrup can be defeated in a district that voted for Gore (and if we can hold on to KY-4), and perhaps turning New Hampshire from R control to a tie if Kerry's coattails can knock out one of the two R Congressmen. In addition, though party discipline would likely be pretty good on a House Presidential vote, there are a couple of states like Delaware where a moderate Republican might be pressured into switching sides if his state, his district (the same thing in DE), and the nation all voted for the Democratic candidate. So getting the Republicans down to 25 or fewer states is not completely out of the question.
If no one gets a House majority (and I admit it's going to be very hard for the Democrats to get to 26 states), then the VP elected by the majority of the Senate would act as President. A pickup of two seats in the Senate for Democrats is not implausible, if we take Illinois, Alaska and one of Oklahoma, Missouri, Kentucky or Pennsylvania while only losing Georgia. (If we pick up one but only one Senate seat, then in the event of a 269-269 tie there could be a constitutional crisis over whether Cheney can break the tie in his own favor or we get a double vacancy with the Sepaer of the House acting as President.)
I don't disagree that the odds are against us in a 269-269 tie. But since none of the seats we'd need to pick up to avoid losing that tie are in key swing states like Florida, Ohio, Arizona, or Missouri, I don't see it as completely implausible that the Democratic ticket could win the Gore states, Nevada (with coattails in NV-3) and New Hampshire (with possible coattails), while losing the rest, and yet the necessary D pickups to put the tie in play could occur in NV, CT, NM, IA and so on. It's not too likely, I grant you, but I wouldn't call it completely impossible.

by David on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 07:12:43 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Missouri will be tough (none)

For two big reasons:
First, the current Democratic Governor, Bob Holden, is very unpopular. Almost Gray Davis-like unpopular. That means anger over the state's economy, which is terrible, has been largely dispersed to Jefferson City as much as to Washington.
Second, Jesus freaks are everywhere in the southern portion of that state, especially the southwest. They are increasingly politically active. Only massive massive turnout among blacks in St. Louis and Kansas City can bring Missouri to the Democrats.

by Elrod on Tue Mar 02, 2004 at 01:28:05 AM PST

[ Parent ]

As someone from Ohio... (none)

... Let me tell you that with just a little extra effort, the state is ripe for the picking in 2004.
In 2000, Gore gave up on this state 2 weeks before the election. Everyone was quite suprised that he still pulled within 3.6% of beating Bush.
This time around if the Democratic candidate doesn't write the state off, it'll be his.
The dipshits in the south of the state will still vote for Bush because he is a "Good Christian who hates them homos". However the progressive voters in the Capital city won't spilt their vote with Nader this year and the manufacturing and Union voters in the north are going to go all out to remove shrub.

by DeanorBust on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 02:48:02 PM PST

[ Parent ]

As someone also from OH (none)

I hope you are talking about the River City when you are talking about the south of the state. Because where I'm from in the SE part could go Democratic. The congressperson is a Democrat. And based on the shitty economy, there is hope of winning that part of the state as long as they don't think you're trying to take their guns and freedoms. SE OH is Appalachian and very similar to WV. Plus WV is where the TV channels come from.

by Sedge on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 03:02:39 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Florida may be Bush country... (none)

...but the inside poop is that Ohio ain't. Im at work right now and cant go into details. Stay tuned to my diaries for more.

"Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says diffrently is selling something" ~The Princess Bride

by AnarchistFag on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 01:39:44 PM PST
Read my lips: We don't need Florida! (3.66)

Without Nadar being a factor, and with the Dems united agaisnt shrub, all we need is to GOTV. If that happens, we will hold the states won in 2000, add New Hampshire and at least one of the following: Ohio, W. Virginia, Neveda, Arizona, or Colorado.
With that, Bush is toast. Simple, isn't it?
The Dems do not need the south and should stop deluding themselves that they will try to be competitive there. Let's face it, if a prominent Tennessee family cannot win its homestate when it is on top of the ticket, how can you expect those right-wing crackers to vote for Kerry?

by daninoah on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 01:40:46 PM PST

And no Jews for Buchanan! (none)

I'm hoping the sizeable Jewish population comes out in force against Bush this November. I spoke with an 82 year old relative this weekend - keep in mind she's never touched a computer and doesn't watch cable news - and she was denouncing Bush's military appearances as propaganda.

People are terrible. They can bear anything.

by soulfrieda on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 01:46:13 PM PST

[ Parent ]
The Dems in the South (none)

"The Dems do not need the south and should stop deluding themselves that they will try to be competitive there."
It is going to be extremely difficult to make the South competitive again, but writing it off completely is not a viable long-term strategy. After the last census, and certainly after the next one, it will be blatantly obvious that if the GOP maintains exclusive control over the South, it will be poised for long-term one-party rule.
There is no reason that our message should not resonate with people below the Mason-Dixon line. If we cede the South, we will leave a lot of Congresspersons and state legislatures stranded, and Zell Miller will have been right after all. We need our own Ralph Reed down there showing working- and middle-class southerners how Bush is seducing them with a right-wing social policy but screwing them with his economic policies.

~Liberal in the best sense of the word~

by Lucky Ducky on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 01:59:28 PM PST

[ Parent ]

"cede" the south? (2.66)

Why not just "Secede?"
Is there anything that we get from the South that could not be obtained in trade? Just what do those states bring to the table (other than the vast majority of military recruits)?
They may have lost the Civil War, but they've been a burden--fiscally and culturally--to the Union ever since.
Argue me this: what do we lose if we slough them off now?

Is that a ring in your nose, or are you just watching TV?

by Gooch on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 02:10:22 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Nooooo! (none)

If they do, Atlanta has to stay as part of the North! ITP isn't southern.

Signature Impaired.

by gttim on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 02:15:44 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Good Point (none)

Good point, GTTim. (I assume that's Georgia Tech?)
The "South" isn't all culturally "Southern." There are pockets of progressives here and there.
And Florida is the most varied of all. North Florida is the epitome of the "Old South." Then there's Little Havana. Palm Beach is an exclave of NYC. And the area around Orlando and the Space Coast (full disclosure - I lived there for three years in high school in the mid 1980s) is a mix of Southerners and non-regional transplants from everywhere else.
Greg

I live in Arlington, Virginia -- a very *blue* corner of a very *red* state.

by GregP on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 02:24:46 PM PST

[ Parent ]

"Pockets of progressivism" (none)

Atlanta is hardly a pocket of progressivism. No offense to GT Tim, but Atlanta is essentially a big city surrounded by vast and untold miles of upper middle class SUV driving white evangelical suburban hell.
As for Florida, my native state, your assessments are pretty accurate. We're to the point where we need to keep fighting to make Florida blue, but if we can't do it this time around we may as well give up.

~Liberal in the best sense of the word~

by Lucky Ducky on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 02:40:47 PM PST

[ Parent ]

The Research Triangle (none)

My roommate comes from the so-called "Research Triangle" of North Carolina, which includes Raleigh-Durham. They also elect Democrats by wide margins, and were almost instrumental in electing Edwards back in '98.

Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives. -John Stuart Mill

by Kaushansky on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 03:54:53 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Defending the South (none)

Forgetting about Texas and Oklahoma, the South defined as FL, GA, SC, NC, VA, KY, TN, AL, MS, AR and LA has 127 electoral votes this time and likely more than 135 after 2010.
I would never want to begin a national campaign down 127 electoral votes, especially since our perceived lock on other states (PA and the upper midwest) is being exposed for the illusion that it is.
Regarding your comment about the cultural and economic situation in the South, I wouldn't want to argue that. But I do think H.L. Mencken's "Sahara of the Bozart" tagline overstates the case. There are millions of educated, thoughtful people in the South, just as there are lots of unsophisticated and ignorant people elsewhere.
If we slough them off now, I think we are looking at long-term, one-party GOP rule. Our message should resonate there, and if it doesn't, it's our own damn fault.

~Liberal in the best sense of the word~

by Lucky Ducky on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 02:21:14 PM PST

[ Parent ]

The Electoral College (none)

I would never want to begin a national campaign down 127 electoral votes
Well, both parties will do just that.
The Democrats will only win any of the following states if the election is such a landslide in favor of Kerry and the following states don't matter anyway:
TX, GA, SC, VA, AL, MS, IN, ND, SD, NE, WY, ID, MT, UT, CO, KS, OK, AK - 147 electoral votes
Similarly, the Republicans face numerous states they simply won't win:
CA, HI, IL, DC, MD, DE, NY, CT, RI, MA, VT, ME - 157 electoral votes
None of the above states will be the margin of victory in this election. If either of these states are wrested away by the 'other' party, then the election will be a blowout.
Each party begins the 2004 election campaign roughly 150 electoral votes out of reach. But since each party also begins the same campaign with roughly the same amount of electoral votes quite (though not absolutely) secure, neither party starts the election 'down'.
Reaching for states that will take a maximum of effort to win is best avoidable. It is further illogical if the rewards are minimal. South Carolina has 8 electoral votes. Montana has 3. Why one Earth bust a nut pursuing these states, when competing for them would basically mandate being no more liberal than Zell Miller? That's called "being everything to everybody". And it doesn't work.
Don't plan on seeing the GOP trying to win Vermont or Hawai'i. Even California, which isn't quite as hopeless as those, will only receive attention for strategic reasons (ie, fundraising, national exposure, trying to force the Democrats to spend money shoring it up, a la 2000) as opposed to tactical reasons (ie, trying to actually win the state) from the GOP.
Frankly, it would be idiotic to try to compete throughout the South for the Democrats. A state or two might be competitive, such as Louisiana or Florida. A couple more might be conceivable gains, though very unlikely - North Carolina, Arkansas. The rest would require far more effort than their worth.
You can't compete everywhere. You try to win the electoral college, and you do so by prioritizing states, ranking them as most winnable. And few Southern states make that list, and none of them, save perhaps Florida (and I don't consider Florida a southern state anyway, but rather a southern state) come anywhere near the top of that list.

by Collideascope on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 02:45:16 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Picking your battles (none)

Fair enough. Let's forget about AL, MS, TN, VA, KY, GA, and SC. It's true, you can't compete everywhere.
But you also can't blow off the entire Old Confederacy. Florida is absolutely in play, and Louisiana should be close as well. I'm less convinced about NC. In fact, I think Edwards abandoned his Senate seat because he wasn't sure he could hold it.
Still the Senate races in FL, LA, and NC merit significant attention and resources from the Party, as do several House districts (including 2 in GA) that are supposed to be ours anyway.
In terms of presidential politics, writing off the south is not a viable long-term strategy. We need to fight like hell for at least some of those electoral votes.

~Liberal in the best sense of the word~

by Lucky Ducky on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 02:53:47 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Florida & The South (none)

But you also can't blow off the entire Old Confederacy.
Well, you certainly can. Bill Clinton didn't need a single Southern electoral vote in either 1992 or 1996. He got a few each time, but he'd have won each election without them. And as for Al Gore in 2000, I fail to see how that final state to push him over the top had to have come from the South. It could easily have been New Hampshire or Ohio or West Virginia.
Florida is absolutely in play, and Louisiana should be close as well.
I don't really see Florida as part of the Old Confederacy. While it was a state then, it's population was in the north, the panhandle and east of there; the peninsula was wilderness, widely considered fetid wasteland. The Union didn't even bother to blockade the peninsula, as there simply wasn't anything there. Florida has far more transplants than any other Southern state, and such transplants tend to care far less about the entire regionalism of the "South". On the other hand, I do see Kentucky as a part of the South, though even as a slave state, it never seceded and fought instead with the Union.
Still the Senate races in FL, LA, and NC merit significant attention and resources from the Party, as do several House districts (including 2 in GA) that are supposed to be ours anyway.
Certainly. The race in North Carolina looks to be close, maybe close enough that Edwards as VP could have enough coattails to tip it. On the other hand, I tend to believe that government functions best when one party does not control all three of the Oval Office, Senate and House, so my interest in seeing the Democrats take the Senate is tempered by the fact that they may well take the White House.
In terms of presidential politics, writing off the south is not a viable long-term strategy. We need to fight like hell for at least some of those electoral votes.
I'm not interesting in seeing resources drained away from states that are easier to capture in 2004 (New Hampshire, Missouri, Ohio, West Virginia) and states that are vulnerable but will be easier to hold that Southern states will be to capture (Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin) because someone wants to subordinate this election to the elections of 2008, 2012 and 2016.

by Collideascope on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 05:41:04 PM PST

[ Parent ]

2010 House seats (none)

I ran the numbers based upon 2000 Census figures and 2003 population estimates, and found that this exaggerates the South's rate of population growth.
Texas is set to gain 3 House seats (to 35), Florida 2 (to 27), and Georgia 1 (to 14). But Alabama and Louisiana will both lose House seats (to 6 each), and the other six Confederate states will neither gain nor lose.
As for ceding those states- just the hardcore Dem states (HI, CA, IL, MD, DC, NJ, NY, CT, RI, MA, VT) total 168 electoral votes, so don't get too concerned.
Slough off the South and you're more likely to get Democratic one-party rule- don't pander to the yahoos and the Dems will win the Midwest and Southwest. If Southerners ever feel like entering the human race, they can call us.

by BSJinx on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 02:53:47 PM PST

[ Parent ]

"Pander to the yahoos?" (none)

Ha! The Republican Party has pandered to the yahoos in ways that the Democrats could never hope to replicate. They nevertheless hold the governorships of supposedly blue states like New York, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island.
Democrats aren't failing in the North and West because of South. They're failing because they suck. Perhaps if they accepted responsiblity and changed their campaigns - you know, so they don't suck - rather than blamed Southerners, they might win.

by Drew on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 03:57:40 PM PST

[ Parent ]

I agree... (none)

...in a very limited sense when it comes to individual D's "sucking". Gray Davis had no charisma (he won due to being less bad than the alternative Republican), and a well-financed right-wing attack machine, plus he lost to a Republican with very unusual characteristics (movie star, pretty liberal when compared with the likes of DeLay).
But saying "they suck" globally...well, lessee. The West Coast is unlikely to go for a Republican in a national election anytime soon, and the R's that DO get lected statewide are very liberal ones, and is also a HUGE base of electoral votes and Congressional seats. We've picked up a D Governor in Arizona, New Mexico's gone D in several national elections.

by pseudopol on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 04:10:04 PM PST

[ Parent ]

But Democrats lost Hawaii ... (none)

... because our party's candidate, well, sucked! And I don't mean that in a mean-spirited personal way, because Mazie Hirono is a very nice lady -- but her campaign was really inept, and had her run away and hide from traditional Democratic principles and constituencies.
We figured that some 40,000 potential Democratic voters stayed home in Hawaii in 2002. GOP candidate Linda Lingle won despite receiving over 2,000 votes less than she did in 1998, when she lost the gubernatorial race to the Democratic incumbent!
So I would have to generally agree with the previous post -- for the most part, our party's campaigns have indeed "sucked."
But never fear, because that's all going to change this year -- I hope ...

by Donald Koelper on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 05:34:28 PM PST

[ Parent ]

qwerty (none)

If Southerners ever feel like entering the human race, they can call us.
Fuck you, you self-important gasbag.

"I'm sorry, Biff, but I just can't relate to you. You see, I'm a penguin, and you're a moron." - TMW

by Senor Biggles on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 05:26:48 PM PST

[ Parent ]

The South (none)

They may have lost the Civil War, but they've been a burden--fiscally and culturally--to the Union ever since.
Southern states do tend to haul in far more federal dollars than they send to Washington.
Argue me this: what do we lose if we slough them off now?
Moot point. You'll never get anything approaching a majority in any Southern state supporting secession, and you can't Constitutionally give a state the boot.

by Collideascope on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 02:24:36 PM PST

[ Parent ]

hah...imagine what would happen (none)

if you could "fire" a state, though. Set off amusing images in my mind...

What will you do when the fighting is over and the nation building begins?

by JMS on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 03:01:21 PM PST

[ Parent ]

"Fire" a state? (none)

I think Sherman tried that...

by Preston on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 03:10:29 PM PST

[ Parent ]

There is also the migration factor (none)

as yuppies start to retire. Florida is the traditional place for people from NYC, Boston, NJ, etc. to retire to, but it's sort of crowded there and places like Atlanta, Charlotte, etc. are pretty cosmopolitan now. I would expect that 10 years from now there will be a substantial swing towards the left in the warm states.
The question then is whether old Democrats turn into Republicans (as seems to happen when they move to Arizona), or do their roots run deep enough to stay liberal as they age?

by asdf on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 03:52:28 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Charlotte cosmpolitan? (none)

Maybe in the sense that people drive nice cars there and there's a rock stations on the radio.
Seriously, from the time I've spent in Charlotte, it seems to me to be GOP heavan. Fairly affluent, large evangelical Christian presence, few minorities beyond the white/black split.
Ben P

Benjamin Disraeli + Robert LaFollette = Ben P

by Ben P on Tue Mar 02, 2004 at 03:31:52 AM PST

[ Parent ]

The object isn't only winning the electoral votes. (none)

It's bringing as many of your people into the next Congress as you can. Too many candidates have forgotten that in recent years.
It's also about forcing the GOoPers to campaign down there, which at least one Kossack mentioned involves Bob Jones, Pat Robertson, and other creepy people that Ohioans find unsettling, to say the least.

What did we do to deserve George W. Bush?

by republicans are idiots on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 02:03:31 PM PST

[ Parent ]
But he won Florida (none)

which is the point here. kos says Florida is not in play. Many of us disagree.

by Armando on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 02:08:19 PM PST

[ Parent ]
NH+NV or NH+WV isn't quite enough... (none)

because that would leave us with a 269-269 electoral tie, which under the 12th Amendment would probably end up as a Republican victory, though House pickups in certain key states and a recapture of the Senate could give us a chance.
NV+WV would be enough, though, as would Ohio by itself, or Arizona by itself, or NH+Colorado, or Missouri by itself, or NH+NV+anywhere else. So you're right that we don't necessarily need the South. We do, however, very probably need one state beyond the two that currently look most likely to flip (New Hampshire and Nevada).

by David on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 03:42:39 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Haitian pop. (none)

Does anyone know the size of the Haitian population in Florida? A Fox News reporter broadcasted from Little Haiti on Saturday, in front of many demonstrators holding signs denouncing US sponsored terrorism and holding Bush responsible for the coup. The Fox report was almost inaudible over the chanting of the crowd: "Aristide yes, coup de etat no!"

People are terrible. They can bear anything.

by soulfrieda on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 01:43:47 PM PST

the problem is most of the haitians dont vote (none)

so it doesnt matter so much how many there are

Steven Kyle

by sck5 on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 01:46:50 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Were they polling African Americans? (4.00)

Or were they scratched from the call list?

"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" - Salvor Hardin

by Zackpunk on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 01:46:04 PM PST
A five point difference is insignificant but (2.44)

The real problem in Florida and other states is that Kerry and the democrats have benefited from a great bounce due to their primaries (all Bush bashing and very little criticism of each other) and are still only even and stuck with a weak candidate. The election remains Bush's to lose.

by Kansas City Show Me on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 01:50:36 PM PST

"The election remains Bush's to lose"? (3.50)

Bush is the most vulnerable president I've seen im my lifetime. He has literally nothing from his record to run on. His campaign will consist entirely of distortions, out of necessity.
Given these facts, I find it rather puzzling that anyone would claim the election is "Bush's to lose". I sure wouldn't want to be Racicot right now...

by Jonathan on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 02:00:39 PM PST

[ Parent ]

aoeu (none)

It's still his to lose. We can make it really really easy for him to lose, but as of now the ball is in his court.

What can't we face if we're together? What's in this place that we can't weather? Apocalypse? We've all been there. The same old trips. Why should we care?

by TealVeal on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 02:50:46 PM PST

[ Parent ]

The ball may be in his court... (none)

But it's coming awfully fast, and he's in really poor field position.
To my mind, that doesn't add up to "the election is Bush's to lose".

by Jonathan on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 03:09:10 PM PST

[ Parent ]

You're talking emotion and opinion, not facts. (none)

If Bush is about even now (before starting his campaign and after months of bashing by democrats), and the incumbant, how can the election not be his to lose? Having said that, the democrat nomincation was Dean's to lose and he promptly did so in a couple weeks. So Bush has plenty of opportunity to lose it during the next 8 months.

by Kansas City Show Me on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 02:55:07 PM PST

[ Parent ]

The campaign has barely started... (none)

Hmmm...about all any of us have right now is "emotion and opinion". And with all due respect, I think there are a lot of factors you're not considering in forming yours.
It is, simply, a fact that Bush's record (by virtually any measure) is very substandard. He will need to distort and talk in generalities to sell himself. He's a known quantity (unlike in 2000), and that will make the sell job pretty tough.
The Democrats haven't even picked a candidate yet, and most people have never heard John Kerry speak. If asked, about all most people might tell you is that he's running against Bush. Yet, you're saying this point is the best Dems can hope for?
There's a huge chunk of the campaign left. Frankly, I think the Dems are in an excellent position right now.
And just to pick a nit, the party is the "Democratic Party", not "Democrat Party".

by Jonathan on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 03:07:19 PM PST

[ Parent ]
One other thing... (none)

The notion that Bush hasn't even started his campaign is ridiculous. "Campaigning" is pretty much all he does.
Yes, he's had a bad time of it recently, thanks in part to the free press the Dem candidates have received. But he's not the only one who will be campaigning from now to November. And with his record, a potentially high turnout of the Democratic base, some disillusionment among Bush's base and polling at this point indicating that Bush is trailing potential Democratic candidates by around five points, Bush has a high hill to climb.
Being an incumbent can be a real disadvantage. The advantage, of course, is one can use the trappings of office during the campaign and scare people into sticking with what they know. The disadvantage is that you can't easily pretend to be something you're not, since you have a record. Bush exploited his "unknown" status in 2000, and still barely won (or lost, take your pick). It will be kind of difficult for him to play down expectations this time.
IMHO, Bush's best bet would be to run a "the devil you know is better than the one you don't" sort of campaign. And by all appearances, his "steady leadership" theme attempts to do just that. But when the devil we know is really pretty bad, that sort of thing won't sell very well.
Bush will try to gloss over his record. I predict he'll sink under its weight, provided the Democratic candidate doesn't roll over and die. And that's why I don't believe the election is "his to lose". He's going to have enough trouble just staying afloat, and he'll need every cent of his campaign war chest to do it.

by Jonathan on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 03:23:22 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Good post ... (none)

... and I second your sentiments. If Democrats are hungry and aggressive, and keep the public's primary focus on George W. Bush as THE central issue in this campaign -- i.e., his lack of character, credibility, and competence -- there is no reason on God's Green Earth why the Democratic nominee shouldn't bowl this malevolent clown over and win going away.
However, if either side manages to reduce the campaign to a series of discussions on generic policy differences, we will probably lose -- because with his money, Bush will almost certainly turn this into his advantage by successfully re-igniting the culture wars.
Currently, even though political pundits nationwide are having a field day slobbering over the prospect of same-sex marriage, normally divisive social and cultural issues aren't showing much traction as major campaign folderol outside of Bush's right-wing fundamentalist yahoo base. Bush will try to change that if we give him the opportunity. That's why we must maintain the initiative, and continue to focus on his administration's deplorably inept and criminal conduct while in office.

by Donald Koelper on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 06:02:05 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Question (none)

The poll was taken last week. Define "last week." Was the poll taken before or after Greenspan's comments about cutting Social Security?

"But nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight/You've got to kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight" -- Bruce Cockburn

by Pizza Driver on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 01:50:46 PM PST
Carrying Florida (none)

Florida is absolutely trending GOP. With the reapportionment of state legislative and US Congressional districts, Florida is basically headed for one-party Republican rule for the forseeable future. When Sen. Nelson is up for reelection in 2006, it will be tough to hold onto.
The race to replace Sen. Graham is going to be extremely close.
As my recent diary and its subsequent comments explain, the decision about how to handle Florida is one of the most difficult strategic calls the Party will have to make.
It's definately too early to write off the Sunshine State. I am moving there later this spring, and my goal is get the nominee to campaign in our county at least once.
Incidentally, our county is 40% Hispanic, went for Gore in 2000 and favored Nelson over McCollum in the Senate race by a 54-44 margin, is represented in Tallahassee exclusively by rich white male Republicans who regularly run unopposed. The local school board and county commission are each comprised of 5 rich white Republicans over 45. It is the worst travesty of democracy I have ever encountered.

~Liberal in the best sense of the word~

by Lucky Ducky on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 01:50:55 PM PST

Really? (3.66)

It is the worst travesty of democracy I have ever encountered.
How about a guy who won less of the popular vote, should have won less of the EC vote, and still gets selected president by a conservative majority of the US Supreme Court?
Now that is the worst travesty of democracy I've ever encountered.

by Bill Rehm on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 02:20:32 PM PST

[ Parent ]

I dunno, Kos (3.50)

Five points seems pretty surmountable, especially if (as I think is increasingly possiuble) Kerry picks Graham as his running mate. Why is 47-42 so "Bush-country-esque"? I would think anytime you hold an incumbent (with a brother as popular governor) under 50, you're in the game. That means a significant number of Floridians like Jeb but not W. That's good, IMO.

by ColoDem on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 01:52:48 PM PST

re: I dunno (none)

Maybe this poll already accounts for ballot stupidity and miscellaneous chad problems.

I know that things are gonna change, But I can't say bad or good. -Neil Young

by strannix on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 01:58:57 PM PST

[ Parent ]
Graham Effect (none)

I'd like to see a poll that asks about a Kerry-Graham ticket in Florida. My guess is that the addition of Graham would likely add several points to Kerry's total.
It's worth keeping in mind that John Kerry has never done any substantial campaigning in Florida, while Bush targeted the state in 2000 and has focused on it since. So if Kerry picks Florida's most popular politician as his veep and campaigns hard in the state, my guess is that the numbers will change and the state will be very competitive again.
Competitive does not mean that the state will necessarily turn blue, but it does mean that Bush will have to work hard to defend it and so won't be able to focus all his resources on holding the Ohios and Missouris of the world. The Democrats may not have to win Florida to win the election, but I think they do have to try hard to win it in order to force the GOP to defend it. If the Dems don't work for Florida, the Bush doesn't have to either. And of course, if we win Florida, we win the election.
Now, if the mid-October polls show a very close race and Kerry's polling better in Ohio than Florida, a case could be made then for pulling out of Florida. But then again that's the kind of decision that came back to haunt Gore related to Ohio in 2000. Florida is not the only state on the target list, but it's got to be in the handful at the top for any Democrat.

by yellowdogjez on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 03:09:28 PM PST

[ Parent ]

I disagree (none)

I think FL is in play. Bush only has a 47-42 lead there. With the open Senate seat race there it would be stupid to abandon the state.
I think the South can be won in the following states:
KY
TN
MO
AR
LA
FL
The rest of the south should be ignored. In the coming years I do think VA will be competetive, but not for several presidential cycles.
It would be dumb to write off the south and Florida. That strategy thus requires everything else--and I do mean everything else--to go our way elsewhere.

by jiacinto on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 01:56:24 PM PST

Not KY (none)

Sadly, Kentucky is trending very strongly for the GOP. The Chandler election is encouraging. But a fairly recent Bluegrass Poll showed that whil 55% of Kentuckians believe Bush exaggerated the WMD threat in Iraq, 58% would still vote for him. That could change but it's unlikely. The other southern states are in play, however.

by Elrod on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 02:34:39 PM PST

[ Parent ]
IMO (none)

I wouldn't call Missouri southern, KY is a loser, and TN may not be doable without some VP pick help. I would also add NC if it's Kerry/Edwards and VA if Kerry/Warner.
Florida is and has been a pure tossup, if one that tilts slightly Repub.
Arkansas is another pure tossup.
Louisiana tilts slightly Repub, but is winnable, especially since the Senate race and 3 or 4 of the House races will be battle royals meaning the party will focus attention there.

by Superribbie on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 03:31:02 PM PST

[ Parent ]
Kentucky is out of reach.... (none)

With Gore from next door, Bush still carried the state 57-41%
If Kentucky is in play, Kerry will be delared the next president before the polls close West of the Mississippi--and Bush's concession speech might be ready in time for the 6 o'clock news.

The conflict over gay marriage was begun on the timing and terms of others. It will end in a way, and at an hour, of our choosing. Culture War? Bring it on!

by Keith Brekhus on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 04:30:22 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Maybe (none)

It's because of the way "Likely Voters" is defined in Florida.

by Ralph on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 01:56:28 PM PST

defined as... (none)

people that won't be "accidentally" purged from the rolls because of an erroneous belief that they are felons

by Superribbie on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 03:32:59 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Military and Religious (none)

In my part of Florida, the most conservative part of the state, I've seen signs of discontent with Bush, but they are muted and most people who express them seem astonished at themselves for even entertaining the idea of voting against the GOP. Still, at least they are thinking about it, which certainly hasn't been the case for as long as I've lived here.
We are heavily populated with military families (retired and active duty) and they have gotten far too used to equating GOP with patriotism. There will be a great deal of nastiness here regarding Kerry's activism against the Vietnam war, no surprise there.
Still, I wonder how many of them, once in the privacy of the voting booth, won't think that getting Bush out is the best thing they can do for their country and for the military.

Majkia

by majkia on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 01:57:37 PM PST

Let them do it (none)

For the life of me I don't get this GOP obsession with Kerry protesting the war.
Hello? Kerry served. Bush was a drunk cokehead who just completely went AWOL from his duty and flight status--from a dodge in the first place.
How does that work? Really? I don't see it.

"Just because we were whipped a thousand years ago is no reason to stop trying now." --Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird

by paradox on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 02:05:55 PM PST

[ Parent ]

That and... (none)

Kerry's actual record during the Vietnam War as an anti-war activist is eminently defensible. Bush has to rely on distortions in order to slime him, and considering that Bush's own record on his service and military issues (veterans benefits, Iraq, etc.) is so spotty and distorted, a deadly pattern of distrust could get started. In some places, it's already happened. If that happens, Bush could lose the military vote.
Moreover, Kerry's calling for an additional 40,000 troops, and is saying the right things (adequate military pay and veterans benefits, etc.). About all Bush has going for himself is some good speeches.
I suspect that Bush's advantage with this constituency might not be terribly solid.

by Jonathan on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 02:15:58 PM PST

[ Parent ]

"Bush has to rely on distortions -- (none)

-- in order to slime ..." and there is nobody better at that disgusting game than the Bushes.

by Donald Koelper on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 06:35:41 PM PST

[ Parent ]

don't even bother (4.00)

Trying to understand GOP logic is like trying to orange peel your snake legs by discovering the difference between a fish.

The truth has a liberal bias

by RationalBias on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 02:29:01 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Exactly! (none)

You must be the change you want to see in the world. - Mohandas K. Gandhi

by jazzlover on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 02:34:47 PM PST

[ Parent ]

The reason it works (none)

is that "nuanced" stories are too hard to communicate to the voting public. Simple stories like "I served and want to protect the US of A" are easy to communicate.
Complicated stories like "I served as a hero in an unpopular war, but then came home and protested against it, and now I want to protect America in general, and while this latest war was the right thing to do in one way, it was wrongly handled..." are just too hard to communicate.
Also, I strongly suspect that most people don't really understand what the National Guard is really all about. The Army, Navy, and Air Force I can understand. The Marines is a bit more complicated; what they heck do they do, anyway? The Coast Guard is a lot more complicated. The National Guard is, what, people who were in the regular service, and after they got out they stayed in somehow and got paid for it, or something? Too complicated to understand.
The easy story is: "I served, and want to protect the US of A." That's what works.

by asdf on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 04:15:22 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Florida is tricky... (none)

First, it's Jeb's state. W is throwing an inordinate amount of money at it to keep the state's constituents happy.
Second, never, ever discount the Puerto Rican vote there. If effective GOTV is in use, they can easily counter the Cuban vote, and they tend to vote Democrat. (If we get off our butt and do the same with voter registation for local Haitians, same eventual result.)
Third, there are a lot of angry African-Americans in that state. Help them a little to provide the payback, and they will deliver in places like Jacksonville and central Florida.
Fourth, you have to make an effort there, so W will keep money flowing there. Money which won't go to, say, Ohio or New Hampshire or Arizona.
In short, Florida will require work. But the investment just might pay off. Don't despair - do.
My two bits...

by Palamedes on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 01:57:44 PM PST
Kerry outpolls Edwards here (none)

Not by much, but worthy of note for the Edwards claim to run better in the South.

Kerriatric Tammany Democrat and proud of it!

by John R on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 01:59:03 PM PST

Doesn't mean much (none)

Florida is not really a Southern state, except for the panhandle. Certainly it isn't a real Southern state from central Florida downwards, not to mention the keys. It's a unique state. A region by itself, and Edwards has no particular claim to it.

Regime change, it's not just for Iraq anymore!

by M Aurelius on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 02:43:52 PM PST

[ Parent ]
Insignificant (none)

Outside of NC, Edwards usually does marginally worse than Kerry [against Bush] and outside of NC, his name recognition is worse than Kerry. I think there's a connection.

by Shawn on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 04:47:20 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Poll numbers (none)

When you have the sitting president under 50%, he's in a dangerous position. Don't forget that prior to the 2000 election most polls showed Gore trailing Bush in Florida by five or six points.

by ChgoSteve on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 02:00:57 PM PST

Exactly (none)

I was wondering when someone was going to note this. I strongly suspect there are some demographic issues in Florida that make early polling somewhat less than accurate, and most people haven't even heard Kerry speak yet. If Florida has a strong military vote, there's a lot of room to swing things.
More to the point, I have to agree that a 5 point lead this far out does not mean the election will go one way or another. By that logic, we've already won the presidency.
Texas is solidly GOP. Florida, IMHO, is in play.

by Jonathan on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 02:07:15 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Register, register, register (none)

Then turnout, turnout, turnout. The Democrats can't cede Florida to the Republicans; they need it for the presidency and for Congress. It's got one of the most lopsided Congressional delegation in the South (only Virigina is worse), and it's only going to get worse if the Republicans remain in power.

by Drew on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 02:01:40 PM PST
Florida in play (none)

I disagree with kos on this. A 5 point deficit in a state that was much stronger for Bush even 6 months ago is not a bad result.
Florida is a swing state and is in play.

by Armando on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 02:02:15 PM PST

Given Natl trends WHY is Bush still leading? (none)

I agree with kos -- given the national trends... that Kerry is leading in all swing states by 6 -12 poinrs.... the fact that NOW Bush is STILL leadings in FL is NOT good news.

"Obviously we are dealing with limited mentalities" -- Daffy Duck

by wxdave on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 03:39:26 PM PST

[ Parent ]
Agreed (none)

The issue is trends. How does the 47-42 compare with last month? two months ago?
Remember that Bush was a few points ahead of Gore just before the 2000 election.
Also -- what are the turnout numbers for 2002 -- Did Jeb win by increasing turnout substantially (like E. Dole did in NC)

by Upper West on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 03:40:48 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Last Dem to win state wide in OH was Bill Clinton (none)

in 1996.
It's been a while since Democrats have been able to o win anything worthwhile in Ohio. I sense a lot of wishful thinking about Ohio, and while I do think it will be highly competitive, I believe no moreso than Florida. And there are various structural advantages to competing in Florida that make me believe it's a better pick-up opportunity than Ohio.
Regardless, the dem nominee should compete very hard in both OH and FL. The idea that we should "skip Florida" is as poor as the thinking that led us to "skip Ohio" in 2000.

by Expo on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 02:05:27 PM PST

OH-IO (none)

True, but OH has been hit very bad by the Bush economy. I've read it's lost the 2nd most jobs of anywhere. I know a good number of 2000 Bush voters who are now ABB. Seems to me that it will come down to whether the Democratic nominee can build a statewide organization to get out the vote. The state party can't be relied on.

by Sedge on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 03:09:53 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Bush led Clinton everywhere at this point in 1992 (none)

It is way too early to write off states just because Bush leads Kerry right now. If I remember right, Clinton didn't pull ahead of Bush 41 until the summer of 1992, and there were many states where he trailed by a lot in March but later won.

by RowdyBrown on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 02:05:59 PM PST

some hard numbers (none)

Ok, that post was lazy, so i looked it up and correct myself:
After the florida primary in 1992, in which Clinton thumped Tsongas in every bracket except the $50K+ bracket, Bush's approval ratings measured 65% in the exit polls. He only had 31% disapproval. The voters were 76% WASP, 16% white Catholic, and 3% Hispanic.
Also in March 1992, a CBS-New York Times poll published Tuesday found Bush's approval rating nationwide down to 40 percent, with only 19 percent of Americans approving of the way he is handling the economy. Bush was admitting that he made a terrible mistake by raising taxes (after "read my lips"), noting it has caused him so much political grief.
So, yeah, Floridians liked Bush more than the rest of the country in 1992. Bush won Florida in 1992 by a 40-39 margin.
Anyway, to change the subject. Remember that Michael Dukakis was a 17-point favorite over Bush in 1988 after the summer convention. Polls don't mean much until the voting is damn near. Didn't the Dean story teach us this - again?

by RowdyBrown on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 02:22:57 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Ohio (none)

If the amount of political ads that have been bombarding the airwaves just this primary season(I've counted 8 Kucinich 5 Edwards and 4 Kerry ads just this moring)is a sign, it appears that theres quite a large focus on Ohio, which is good because we Ohio democrats like not being ignored for once :)

Clark Gone, Now Free Agent Voter

by marcvstraianvs on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 02:14:03 PM PST
Florida is Important (none)

Any state where Kerry/Edwards is within 5 points of an incumbent President is in play. It is important to campaign hard in Florida, but more importantly to make sure that Democrats are registered and that Democratic voters are not kept from the polls or put at a disadvantage by a stupid ballot format. Any number of things may happen between now and November. It is way too early to let some poll decide our issues or our campaign strategy.

by eafredel on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 02:16:52 PM PST
Bush/Florida/under 50% (none)

Is Kos losing his/her touch? This is a deeply silly and ill-informed post.
Everyone repeat after me and just for good measure, write this down so you don't have to be reminded again. Any time the incumbent President polls under 50% that incumbent is vulnerable. He has been in office for 3 years, people have had every opportunity to form an opinion about that official, and over 50% have not been sold. This is a very , very good position for the Democrats to be in at the beginning of the general election. Now granted, the nominee must close the sale but at least he, presumably Kerry, will be a fair hearing from the Florida voters.

by dmh on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 02:20:09 PM PST

i refuse to write that down... (none)

Not only do you dare to question kos ; ) , but your criticism is insufferable. "Over 50% haven't been sold?" Read the post. 58% of Floridians favor Bush, his brother is still a popular governor, and Kerry will be a tough sell.
A fair hearing? Florida? Let's hope so...

by hirtius on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 02:30:03 PM PST

[ Parent ]

58%? (none)

I must have missed that number somewhere. In Kos's post, he indicates 47% favor Bush, compared with 42% Kerry.

by Jonathan on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 02:54:17 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Ah, there it is. (none)

My goof. Right in front of me. How embarrassing...

by Jonathan on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 02:57:14 PM PST

[ Parent ]

aoeu (none)

Formerly Jonathan4Dean?

What can't we face if we're together? What's in this place that we can't weather? Apocalypse? We've all been there. The same old trips. Why should we care?

by TealVeal on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 03:01:25 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Nope (none)

Always just "Jonathan". Although I did support Dean...

by Jonathan on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 03:27:24 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Favorable vs. Reelect (none)

Favorability numbers are meaningless now. We are looking at reelect numbers--47 Bush, 42 Kerry. These are the numbers that count and anything under 50% for an incumbent is bad, bad news. Kos readers need to pay closer attention.

by dmh on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 05:09:52 PM PST

[ Parent ]

A suprise for Kos (none)

I do believe that placing Kos' gender into and either/or category may come as a bit of a suprise to both him and his wife.

You must be the change you want to see in the world. - Mohandas K. Gandhi

by jazzlover on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 02:39:28 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Scratch Bob Graham... (none)

for VP.

by hirtius on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 02:22:58 PM PST
this whole election is going to hinge on (none)

perception.Florida voters know that if your gov. is the presidents brother its to your advantage.If the perception in oct. is Bush could lose all bets are off in Fla.

by ctkeith on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 02:23:34 PM PST
Five points is nothing... (none)

Much as I hate to admit it, it appears increasingly likely that Florida is Bush country and will stay that way...Asked to choose between the president and his likely Democratic challenger, Florida voters favored Bush over John Kerry by 47 percent to 42 percent.
Jeez, lets have a little faith. Being behind by 5 points in March is not reason to state that Florida is a goner.

by assyrian64 on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 02:32:34 PM PST
switcheroo (none)

My inlaws are retired, wee-to-do and Jewish - and while they are not in Florida, ALL of their friends are.
Years ago, I believed the spew I was fed by the Wurlitzer, while my Father-in-law explained that Jews tended to be liberal, etc, etc.
In the last few years, however, things have switched - I have come to see the lies, lies, and disdain for everything except money and power ( including hating minorities and gays) that the Republican party has come to represent. My Inlaws, depite being art lovers, and world travelers, are now boycotting France and all things French. They have bought the fear hook line and sinker.
As long as the old-folks in Florida are soiling themselves in fear of "terror", Bush will take the Sunshine State.
Screw Florida. Ohio is the place to win.

by fasteddie on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 02:33:36 PM PST
but.... (4.00)

I agree with Kos that this is a bad sign about Florida. What people are missing is that Bush is outpolling Kerry by 5 points in Florida while Kerry's leading by 5 points nationally.
This points to a 10-ish point gap between Kerry's national numbers and his Florida numbers. If those two move together (a fair approximation) and if the Florida poll is accurate (more dubious), then Florida will indeed be very difficult to win unless the national election is a blowout in which case it doesn't matter.

by ColoZ on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 02:35:36 PM PST
Sorry to disagree (none)

Bush is an incumbant who is 3 points below 50. By any reasonable measure, he is in trouble here. In general, undecideds break about 3 or 4 to 1 against the incumbant. If you do the math, this would make Florida a tie.
Do I think that this should be the #1 target on the Dems list? No, I would put holding the upper midwest and making inroads in the Southwest ahead of Florida. But it is way to early to give up on this state. There is very real hope here.

by fladem on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 02:40:27 PM PST
Go Home Everybody...the election is over! (none)
Kos,
Chill out for chrissake. Reading the topline results of any poll (especially this many months out) and declaring Fla. already lost is a little bit shortsighted.
1. ) There is a 11 point spread between favorability and re-elect. Fully 20% of the have a favorable of opinion of him are are not sure if they would vote for him again. That is bizarre considering that he is a known commodity.
2. ) Re-elect at a stunning 47%. Wow. That is really intimidating.
3. ) I would rather have the nomination battle end, if possible, after March 10, as Fla. is among the list of states voting that day. Put Kerry and Edwards down there with paid and free media and the numbers are bound to change, as has been reflected in other states.
4. ) Don't tell me about Jeb's re-elect numbers in 02, because they are meaningless. He won pretty easy in 98 and that did not matter. Furthermore, as a resident of Northern Virginia, I look forward to the day when we are a blue state. But, I know that that is not possible now, even though we just elected a Democratic governor.
5. ) 58% favorability. That does not seem to mesh with the issue by issue numbers excerpted below. Also, keep in mind that favorability mixes strongly favorable and somewhat favorable. And, favorability and approval of job performance are different standards. The best case in point being that I would bet that Clinton's job approval always outmatched his favorability rating in a post-Monica setting.
-In the Florida poll, only 5 percent rated the president's handling of the economy as excellent and 39 percent called it good, while 39 percent said fair and 12 percent said poor.
-"Almost 45 percent rated his domestic issues record as good or excellent, while 47 percent called it fair or poor."
-"52 percent said the war in Iraq had been worthwhile. Fifty-eight percent said the war had made the United States safer from terrorism. Slightly less than half, 49 percent, said the president's handling of the war had been good or excellent, while 35 percent called it fair, 10 percent said poor and 6 percent were not sure."
-"When asked: "Whom do you trust to deal with foreign policy and security?" 44 percent picked Bush while 32 percent said Kerry."
by vardis on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 02:44:33 PM PST

Sorry...need to learn to proofread.... (none)

I'll do better next time.
On another note...IT IS ONLY MARCH 1ST!
Again, favorability: 58. Re-elect: 47.
Calm down everyone.

by vardis on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 02:56:20 PM PST

[ Parent ]

How to win Florida... (4.00)
Florida can be won, but it takes some careful planning, attention to complex demographics, and an effective ground operation.
There are many issues of unique importance to this state that need special attention:
1. An effective message to Cuban-Americans, which requires a clear coherent vision on what to do with Cuba. For all his fire and brimstone, bush has brought Cuba no closer to freedom than anyone else, and some second and most third generation Cubans are definitely open to a different approach by now.
2. A clear and agressive manned space exploration vision. I've said this before, but except for Meteorblades I never get any attention on this subject. The space coast is teeming with NASA employees and contractor employees, their families, and the economy built up around them. These people are aware that bush's space initiative hangs on a thread, and that no Democrat since Kennedy has given NASA the support and vision it deserves.
You are not taking Florida seriously if you ignore the space coast.
1. A massive voter registration and verification drive in the African American community. In particular, a disenfranchisement prevention program should be implemented with two tiers. First, all known black voters should be checked against the felony database before voting day. And second, a Democratic party official and lawyer team should be present at each voting place where disenfranchisment is likely. About 4,000 African-American votes were stolen in this manner in 2000.
2. Military heavy Northern Florida voters should be made fully aware of every particular show of contempt shown by this administration for "the troops", from benefits cuts, to combat-pay cuts, and many other examples. Army Times should be quoted extensively. Every conservative little old lady in North Florida should get the message to the point where she says "that's not right!". And obviously, a specific plan to improve pay and conditions for the troops must be presented.
Just some ideas...
Regime change, it's not just for Iraq anymore!

by M Aurelius on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 03:05:24 PM PST

Winning FL (none)
Excellent points.
1. The Cuban-American vote will be crucial, because unlike the black vote, which even in FL is reliably Democratic, the Hispanic vote is split in unique ways. Immigrants from South America are more easily identified with the Democratic Party, but Cuban-Americans are surprisingly Republican. It doesn't help that Mel Martinez, a Cuban, is running for Senate. He's such a screwup, though, I can't help but think Rove is running him for Senate to boost turnout for Bush in the general. When he was tapped to be HUD Secretary, it was clear he was just Bush's token Hispanic. Let's just say he is no Andrew Cuomo.
2. Black voter turnout will be critical. After the 2000 fiasco, the Election Supervisors' offices know they will be under the gun. It is imperative that the state party or the DNC ensure that no blacks are disenfranchised this time around. I wonder if this group is coordinating registration drives at black churches...
3. Space. Gore, for all his sincere attepmts to care about science, did nothing to energize the Space Coast. Those precincts are distressingly Republican, but if the Democratic Party/nominee could string together a coherent space policy, it would go a long way. Just to illustrate how Republican the Space Coast is, however, bear in mind that their GOP congressman regularly wins 60% of the vote.
4. Military. Interestingly, with few exceptions, the military installations are in the reddest parts of the state - the Panhandle and the Space Coast. It's important for the nominee to show that for all his lofty rhetoric, the President has treated soldiers and vets with remarkable contempt.
~Liberal in the best sense of the word~

by Lucky Ducky on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 03:21:03 PM PST

[ Parent ]
Let me restate M Aurelius's #3 (none)

I surely do hope we do this, it is right in every way. It troubles me that both Kerry (when still- within-the-primary-Dems-are-the-target days of springtime 03 in the standard get over it mode as well as Gep (from the stage at the FL Dem convention, for gods sake) seemed very willing to dismiss the widespread Democratic concerns wrt election '00 (in my view there was nothing not to be concerned about).
Over the weekend I caught (CSPAN) the day long Black Family seminar in Miami moderated by Tavis Smiley.
Now the focus of the various speakers was not the coming election, but Smiley opened the day by invoking the '00 election and stating that Miami was the appropriate place to reinvigorate and take back the results and disenfranchisement of 00.
Between Blacks and non Cuban Hispanic voters, we've got to work, at least as is realistic, for this state.
I concede nothing this early.

Thank you for the applause! It makes me so happy I could scream!

by Marisacat on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 03:49:34 PM PST

[ Parent ]
"A message to Cuban-Americans" (none)

It would be a surprise to me if Cuban Americans supported any 'clear coherent vision' on Cuba short of a return to the Bay of Pigs.

by Preston on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 04:02:23 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Don't paint them all with the same brush (none)

Andy Garcia isn't Jorge Mas Canosa.
Plus it's kind of hard to argue that they've obtained any results from the embargo.
It simply would take time and effort to mold and transmit a coherent message. And "our leaders" speaketh in soundbites.
Which is why I wanted Dean: he was the anti-sound-bite. In fact, his sound bites were awful. Anyway...

Regime change, it's not just for Iraq anymore!

by M Aurelius on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 04:32:01 PM PST

[ Parent ]

I think it was more like 100,000 votes were stolen (none)

There were close to 100,000 african americans illegally removed from the voter registration in Florida. Assuming a voter turnout of 40-50% and 90% support of the Democratic candidate that is about 40,000 additional votes that should have gone to Gore.

by Bri on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 05:01:12 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Hmm, (none)

The figure I had was 20,000, plus about 25% voter turnout for that demographic, so that yields plus or minus 5,000. Still, I barely recall this information because so many numbers were thrown around.
This would be a good thread to put a source on that, for reference.
Kos should make "Florida" a topic all by itself.

Regime change, it's not just for Iraq anymore!

by M Aurelius on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 06:50:14 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Kerry and the Miami Cubans (none)

They'll never forgive him for busting their Coke smuggling partnership with Ollie North and the Contras.
So he should come out against the embargo, and shore up support from Grain Belt farmers.

I am not currently Licensed to Practice in this State.

by ben masel on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 03:12:18 PM PST

That's not a good reason (none)

He should come out against the embargo, because after 44 years it should be clear that IT DOESN'T WORK. He should lead on this and make the case that rather than passing a simple litmus test that gets no results, he will make Cuba a top priority.
He should say that about a thousand times.
Younger, more Americanized Cubans should be flexible enough to hear that argument. They are looking more for a solution than for revenge against Castro.

Regime change, it's not just for Iraq anymore!

by M Aurelius on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 04:10:13 PM PST

[ Parent ]

polls are less useful than trends at this time (4.00)

Here are the trends for Florida over the last 4 elections:
1988
Florida: Dukakis lost by 22.3%
US: Dukakis lost by 7.7%
GOP ran 14.6% better in Florida.
1992
Florida: Clinton lost by 1.8%
US: Clinton won by 6.5%
GOP ran 8.3% better in Florida.
1996
Florida: Clinton won by 5.7%
US: Clinton won by 8.5%
GOP ran 2.8% better in Florida.
2000
Florida: Gore "lost" by 0.0%
US: Gore won by 0.5%
GOP ran 0.5% better in Florida.
At this point, I trust these numbers more than polls. Florida has been trending toward us while, IA, WI and MN have been trending away.
I feel much more comfortable going all out for Florida than I do for Ohio. The Southwest strategy just doesn't have enough EVotes - for example winning AZ requires holding the rest of the Gore states - while winning Florida puts the Dems in the driver's seat.
Don't let mid-year elections fool you! Presidential elections have a much different turnout and the democratic party was lost in 2002.
Florida is critical - it should be our number one priority to win.

by Mo on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 03:13:42 PM PST

I like this analysis (none)

Wow -- this is a nice analysis. Thanks!

by ColoZ on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 05:27:17 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Kos, you are wrong... (none)

...I'm sorry to say. Because Florida is a March 9 primary state, i.e. after Super Tuesday, there has been NO, zero, zip expenditures or time spent in the state by any Democratic candidate. Of course, Dubya has been here dozens of times.
Most folks here have not even awakened to the fact that this is an election year (we're a bit on the "hang loose" side of slow down here; that's why people vacation here). The fact that we're within 5 points of Dubya is, as I see it, amazingly good at this point in time.
Also, remember that in a sample size of N=600, the statistical sampling uncertainty is 1/(sqrt(N))=4.1%, and that does not include additional sources of error common to polls such as respondant weighting factors.
The reason that our state legislature and Congressional delegation are lopsided Republican is because of gerrymandering, pure and simple (see: Texas). Statewide offices, such as US Senate, are both Democrats. The Governor's race in 2002 was influenced by the national Democratic malaise that year, plus Bill McBride's very poor campaign.
Bottom line is that I actually see Florida trending Democratic for November. Greenspan's "Let's cut back Social Security" talk will provoke a fierce reaction down here once it is advertised and widely understood.
Cheers,

by Greg in FL on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 03:19:11 PM PST

Don't blame me, I voted for Reno! (none)

"The Governor's race in 2002 was influenced by the national Democratic malaise that year, plus Bill McBride's very poor campaign."
I agree. Also, I have to admit Jeb does a better impression of a moderate than his older bro.
Still, in some ways the Republicans here may be as badly organized as the Democrats. It's not at all clear what will happen with the primaries for the Senate race, but I think we could end up with the stronger candidate there as well, with a bit of luck. I don't know alot about him yet, but it might be interesting if Alex Penelas, the Miami-Dade Mayor were to win the Democratic nomination.

by acerimusdux on Tue Mar 02, 2004 at 02:19:13 AM PST

[ Parent ]

GWB and Jeb began (none)

their 2004 campaign in FL the day after the SCOTUS gave it to GWB in 2000. DEMs couldn't even be bothered to fight for those who were disenfranchised in 2000. DEMs let the "bad blood" between Clinton and Janet Reno to push them to champion a political novice for Governor in 2000 instead of recognizing that Reno was very popular with just those voters who we need most to show up at the polls and make the difference for DEMs. To think that DEMs who have no organizational depth and strength in FL are going to be competitive withe the Jeb machine (and they control the actual machines even better this time around) is so naive that it makes be want to "scream."
DEMs should have been organizing OH, WV, NV and AZ since 2000. OH because while DEMs have no organizational strength there, the GOP is not all that well organized there either. I have yet to see that anybody has a good handle on what is going on in WV. Was 2000 a "one off" for DEMs or does it indicate that WV has joined the south? NV and AZ are so quickly trended DEM do to demographic changes, that organization is key. PA is not in play for the GOP as much as GWB pretends that it is. Gore won by 4% and Rendell in 2002 consolidated the DEM strength. DEMs need to be very careful in those states that were blue in 2000 but trended GOP in 2002 - like MN.
I'm with Kos -- FL will not be in play in a close election in 2004. Only difference is that while I suspected as much after the 2000 election, I viewed 2002 as the proof.

by Marie on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 03:25:37 PM PST

WV, FL, PA, MN (none)

Thanks. (Would Janet Reno really have won?) WV hasn't joined the south; trouble is they mine coal, and Al Gore hates coal (because it's the dirtiest energy source there is)-- coal plus guns sent WV to W. in '00; doubt it will happen again. I hope you're right about Rendell, but his recent PA numbers show fairly low approval (I think it's around 42), so we can't take PA for granted; as for MN, where I live, it's likely a toss-up this time-- the party with better GOTV picks it up; the last set of state polls had Kerry winning, but not by much. ('02 returns make things here look even worse than they probably are: voters reacted to the Wellstone memorial.)

by pangolin on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 03:46:04 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Doubt that Reno (none)

would have won FL. That wasn't my point. My point is that those who liked her showed up in unusually strong numbers for Gore in 2000. Many were blocked from voting and many others knew that their votes weren't counted. They needed to be empowered to believe that next time nobody is going to stop them from voting and their votes will be counted. The very party that should have been standing up for them, told them in 2002 that we don't really care who you like, we'll do it our way and it's up to each of you individually to make sure that you are allowed to vote and get your vote counted. That's a good way to inspire people to keep trying.
Only Dean's comment that "this time the guy who gets the most votes is going to the WH" at least acknowledged in a rudimentary form that they were important to him and was something he could build upon in the general election.

by Marie on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 04:02:37 PM PST

[ Parent ]

If there's widespread agreement (none)

that people were not allowed to vote, or that votes weren't counted, I would hope that the party would have a solid organization of poll watchers in place.
In the (northern) elections I've voted in, the polls are run, and monitored, almost exclusively by beady-eyed little old ladies who would as soon chop off your hand as allow a hint of any sort of funny business to sneak in to the process. Is it not that way in the south?

by asdf on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 04:23:40 PM PST

[ Parent ]

well there seems to be (none)

widespread agreement that Iraq had no threatening WMD, but that seems not to have resulted any action from the electorate either.
FL from what I can glean from published information does not have the same kind of old guard controlling their elections as you see in other states. The huge in migration and part time residents likely contribute to this. Plus FL has historically been rife with election irregularities.

by Marie on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 04:57:28 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Poll bias? (none)

I posted this in another thread. I'm not sure whether Research 2000, and its pollster Del Ali, are completely neutral. The site has testimonials from the national right to work committee and the gun owners of America. No testimonial from "liberal" organizations. Anyone know anything more about this polling outfit?

by Paleo on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 03:26:33 PM PST
If we concede FL, there are side-effects (none)

It's harder to defend Bob Graham's open Senate seat.
It's harder to use "Remember Florida" (or "Blame Florida") as a national rallying cry. Bad enough the DNC has dropped the VRI ball. If we really want to signal indifference to voting systems integrity, write off Florida.
It's harder to avoid identification as "writing off the South" ... which has repercussions that extend throughout the near-south and elsewhere, and across several consecutive campaign cycles.
It's harder to energize down-ballot races -- not just in FL, but in GA (where we should be actively promoting "Ralph Reed Remorse" themes and leveraging them in FL).
It gives the Bush team unnecessarily great tactical freedom elsewhere.
There's money and energy in FL. Some of it will flow to remote races whatever we do. Some of it is ours only if we fight on gator turf.
True, there are better targets on the map, but 47-42 is definitely "in play". Bush has negatives, we have positives (probably moreso among opinion leaders). We can convert leaners, and turn soft negatives to hard negatives. That's why you have a campaign.

by RonK Seattle on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 03:35:05 PM PST
Is Florida winnable? (none)

Sure, Florida is winnable. But...
The Dems put way too much in 2002 into Texas and Florida, hoping to embarrass Bush. We got creamed in both states. The polls showed the Texas senate and Florida governor's race much closer than the final results.
Florida has a great deal of emotional baggage, and I'd rather strip that away and see if it's the best use of our limited resources. And given the expense of playing there, initial indications are poor.
Ohio is where it'll all be at. That's the holy grail this election. Major roles will also be played by AZ, NV, NH, WI, WV, MN and PA.
To me, Florida is a second-tier pickup opportunity. Alongside MO, LA, AK, and maybe, just maybe, VA.

by kos on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 03:36:45 PM PST

yup, but lets not concede.... (none)

anything. That doesnt mean watering down the message to appeal to southern voters. But it also doesnt mean abandoning ship and not even trying. We should stay true to our central message of a sane foreign policy and the economic message that we already seem to have (and that Mr. Greenspan is helping us to communicate). And force them to defend Florida without throwing tons of money at it.

Steven Kyle

by sck5 on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 03:44:22 PM PST

[ Parent ]
Agree - (none)

way too little time left and too little money. Graham is popular enough that he could have easily won reelection -- we need him in the Senate. Why couldn't our Party have encouraged him to become one of the leading DEM Senate spokespersons and not squander so much on a POTUS bid?

by Marie on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 04:09:48 PM PST

[ Parent ]
Be serious everyone... (none)

Kos, to seriously consider AZ as a pickup over Fl. is lunacy of the highest order. If the conservative bastion of AZ is winnable, how in god's name can you dismiss FLA?
Is this based on the one poll cited today? C'mon. One poll that is of dubious value considering that that AWE-INSPIRING re-elect of 47% trails "favorability" by 11% points. Puh-leeze. Be serious. 20% of the 58% favorable is unwilling to say that they would vote for him again...a known commodity, mind you.
On top of that, as I indicated in a post a little further down, the issue by issue approvals are drastically lower than the overall 58% favorability.
As to initial indiciations, they are just that. If "initial indications" were used at this time last year to decide targeting, the list of states deemed "competitive" would amount to states that we should be able to win in our sleep.
Yes, Ohio is a target. And so is Fla.
As to Va, I am a lifelong Virginian. In my lifetime, this state has never gone Democratic. (I'm 31.) It is not about to go Democratic now and probably will not go Democratic for another twenty years. I'd love to see it happen, though I would countenance against anybody spending money here. If Va. went Democratic this cycle, Kerry might well top 450 electoral votes.

by vardis on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 04:28:56 PM PST

[ Parent ]

woops....called VA a state... (none)

Damnit. I know better. The Commonwealth of VA....

by vardis on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 04:30:43 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Maybe not AZ (none)

But I think Kos may have been thinking of NM. That's one where the Dem's can get surprisingly close.
As for FL, I'm afraid the current generation of Seniors trends more Conservative than their predecesors. Not too long ago we still had a good number of voters who came of age in the FDR-Truman era. Todays's senior set is more dominated by Eisenhower Republicans who came of age in the culturally conservative, anticommunist 50's.
Due to issues like SS and Medicare, Democrats have traditionally done well with older voters. But Bush can grab a good percentage of the current generation of retirees if he keeps hitting those cultural hot button issues, like gay marriage and nipple rings, as he has done succesfully over the last week. I suspect that had this poll been taken two weeks earlier, the Democrats might have fared better.
The good news is, all the Democrats needed in 2004 was New Hampshire. You may need Florida to make it a blowout, and I think there's still a chance to win it. I suspect the key states to win, however, will be along the Mississippi river valey. Right down into Louisiana, which might be a longshot, but may be more competitive than Florida this cycle.

by acerimusdux on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 10:29:24 PM PST

[ Parent ]
i thought for a while that kos had gone insane. (none)

then i realized that he meant arkansas, AR, not alaska, AK. whew.
although i was shocked to discover a while back that alaska went ten percent for nader in 2000. it was 60-30-10 or something very close to that. who'd-a-thunk?

by texas dem on Tue Mar 02, 2004 at 01:27:16 AM PST

[ Parent ]
also (none)

i think we're gonna have to choose our swing states based on our nominee's personality and background. i think kerry is less suited for nevada and even arizona than he is for ohio and west virginia -- due to guns, the death penalty, and perceptions of an east-coast, pro-urban, pro-gay mentality that just wont fly in those scrub-brush states as well as they will in ohio and wv. obviously many people in ohio and west virginia like guns and electric chairs too, but they're more used to rockefeller types than nevada is; arizona elected the give-em-hell john mccain, who is a fairly strong contrast to the more stately kerry.
particularly given a kerry-edwards ticket, i think a strong run could be made at the ohio-WV-virginia axis, with a rearguard action to hold the upper midwest. a lot of the issues play out similarly in those states, allowing for a solid, coherent message; kerry could run well in the industrial centers of OH WV WI while edwards could run for the rural parts of those states. in virginia, i think we could see kerry hammering at the northern suburbs while edwards works over his own backyard in the southern half of the state; sign on mark warner as an active campaigner and you might have a deal.
the main advantage of this is that it doesnt leave you tripping over yourself to avoid offending people in louisiana or nevada; running hard for wildly different groups of swing states can leave you sounding like three different campaigns, which is Very Bad.
-- i say this as someone who would REALLY love to see the southwest flip. and a kerry-richardson ticket is also plausible, and would imply a completely different strategy. but given john kerry's persona (and we saw how much impact gore's persona had), i'm not sure this is the cycle to go for the southwest. clark and dean were the men for that.

by texas dem on Tue Mar 02, 2004 at 01:48:44 AM PST

[ Parent ]

Not necessary (none)

Al Gore proved that a Democrat can win the Presidency without winning Florida ...
What's that? Oh, I'm sorry, silly me for counting West Virginia for the Democrats. To me that's like the Rs losing Idaho.
I'm glad these poll numbers are showing this now ... let's hope and pray that our mental superiors in 527 land and at the DNC will focus their firepower AWAY from Florida and its 354 major media markets and into some other, cozier, cheaper, more winnable place. Missouri comes to mind. Arkansas isn't impossible, either. And of course, "the Florida of 2004", Ohio.
I fear that Terry McAuliffe's mania to win Florida and prove a point to Katherine Harris, Jeb Bush, Mickey Mouse, N Sync, your grandma and every other citizen of the Sunshine State will suck up valuable, valuable resources that we'll need to win one of the aforementioned states (not to mention hold onto MN, NM, and have a fighting chance in AZ or NH) ...
OR.
Down the rabbit hole we go again.

http://hoeffelforsenate.meetup.com http:www.hoeffelforsenate.com

by Emcee on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 03:48:20 PM PST

Missouri is a mirage (none)

>Missouri comes to mind
The biggest waste of Democratic resources
in the 2000 and 2002 cycles.

by Expo on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 04:14:57 PM PST

[ Parent ]

dump cheney (none)
i've seen the rumor and if it's true:
1. It sends a signal that Bush campaign is sinking
2. It amounts to an admission of failure for the last 4 years
3. It cuts the rug out from under his main argument (from 2000) that even if Bush is an unqualified lightweigh, he's smart enough to surround himself with good people.
4. Even Rudy can't deliver New York for Bush
I suppose they could try to claim a medical excuse -- but who's going to buy it? If it wasn't an issue after the first 100 heart attacks, what's the problem now?
by markymarx on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 03:54:54 PM PST
I'm not so sure... (none)

I attended Camp Wellstone in Tampa last weekend. It was co-sponsored by ACT (America Coming Together) which is funded by George Soros. ACT is planning to spend millions to GOTV in 17 states, including Florida. They are opening offices all over the state, targeting the areas most likely to vote Democratic.
There were many other groups represented at the Camp that are working together to defeat GWB in 2004. There is a highly motivated and energized base here in Florida that wasn't present in the 2002 mid-term election.
I was shocked to hear that most of the 90,000 who were wrongfully purged from the voter rolls by JEB! and Katherine Harris in 2000 HAVE NOT been re-instated! Apparently, there are many activists working to accomplish this task before November, so let's hope they are successful.
A distressing note, however, is that (I believe) 65 of 67 Supervisors of Elections in the state are Republican. One attendee said that they all go straight to Jeb for their marching orders. It is imperative that we have a paper trail on the electronic voting machines in this election.

by Susan S on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 03:55:30 PM PST

Yes (none)

It is imperative that we have a paper trail on the electronic voting machines in this election.
Actually, this is my number one Florida concern.
I can't believe Kos left out fraud. It's a really big problem, and it must be addressed proactively. They will try to cheat. There is no question. If they refuse to use paper-traceable voting systems, then lawsuits should already be in place.

Regime change, it's not just for Iraq anymore!

by M Aurelius on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 04:25:41 PM PST

[ Parent ]
interesting (none)

i would like to hear more about the camp wellstone... why in the word aren't the 90,000 reinstated yet?
did florida get sued and settled lawsuit to have these voters back on rolls in time for 2004 election?
i think florida SHOULD be a swing/trending dem state but because of Jeb stranglehold and federal government handouts by W -it is trending republican. but 47% is hardly anything to be scared about

are you kosher?

by smartone on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 04:50:07 PM PST

[ Parent ]

Kos, get a GRIP!!! (none)

Dude, you see one poll with Bush at 47%, with 10% undecided, and with a margin of difference within the margin of error, and you declare that Florida isn't up for grabs??? What are you smoking. A poll could come out tomorrow saying Kerry has a 2 point lead, then what would you say? If Kerry picks Bill Nelson/ Bob Graham as his Veep, you really don't think Florida will be in play? After what HAPPENED IN 2000!?! What are you thinking. We'll have the highest Dem turnout in FL Presidential history if we play to that anger there. Usually you give pretty good political analysis, but, this time, it looks like you jumped the gun.

Wes Clark is all patriot, no act!

by mel4clark on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 03:59:03 PM PST
Another reason (none)

Yet another reason to vote Edwards tomorrow: so that the race will remain competitive through 3/9, and we get the "Dem primary" bounce in FL and LA. Sure it may be temporary, but it keeps us in the news. Believe it or not, some fairweather Bush fans who don't follow the news too closely still think the Shrub is very popular.
In NH, the primary bounce may have been worth as much as a 30 (!) point swing in favor of the Dem vs. Bush. So if Edwards makes a last stand in Florida, and has a decent showing but loses, I guarantee you that the following week, if they poll Florida, Kerry/Edwards will lead Bush/Cheney by a good 4-6 points.

by Oleo on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 04:26:49 PM PST
Camp Wellstone is (none)

a part of Wellstone Action. Check out their web site and give them $$$. The goal is to teach field organizing as Paul Wellstone practiced it. It is aimed at progressive grassroots political causes.
One camp was held at the Florida Dem Convention in December in Orlando and another here in Tampa last weekend. Don't know where others are planned, but it was phenomenal. Wish I'd had the training before I stormed in Iowa!
Don't know why those voters haven't been reinstated, but the people who told us about it seemed well informed on the topic.
Camp Wellstone is the perfect compliment to what Howard Dean is now trying to do. I urge you all to look into it.

by Susan S on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 05:02:26 PM PST
Northern Dem Governors and FLA (none)

Pardoning the thousands of Marijuana felons from Northern States now in Florida would reinstate their voting rights. Wisconsin, Michigan, and Illinois would account for 3,000 or so.

I am not currently Licensed to Practice in this State.

by ben masel on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 05:28:51 PM PST
Bush still below 50% (none)

Given that Bush has visited that state over 20 times, had his brother playing attack dog for him, and that Republicans hold all five constitutional offices, and big majorities in the legislature and U.S. House (because of gerrymandering in part), Bush should have a bigger edge than that. Also, Kerry and Edwards have spent virtually no time, energy, or money there. Even at a 47-42 lead, Bush still polls 2% lower than his 2000 number. Plus, let's see another poll that shows this before we panic. I would like to know if Research 2000 has been good at polling in Florida. The Mason/Dixon Poll has always been at good poll, but what about this one? In 2000, voters over 60 voted for Bush, while those under voted for Gore. Now this poll is showing the exact opposite, but that could be from the Medicare issue, but why would younger voters suddenly switch sides?

by sdonahue on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 07:13:27 PM PST
Florida Democratic Party (none)

is incompetent from what I've seen also. The activity that's taking place around Tampa is more grassroots than that. I think the MeetUps and 537s are where the action is now.
Whoever said they were in Tampa needs to get in touch with a local group. Go to www.hcdec.org and ask to get on their mailing list. If you want to help me work a precinct next week to get voter signatures for a couple of Dem candidates, I'd love to have you help me.
Also, John Kerry (not my first choice) will be in Tampa tomorrow night at Centro Ybor. So I guess our days of being ignored are coming to an end.

by Susan S on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 07:32:21 PM PST
There's Too Damn Much (none)

defeatism on this thread! Wake up folks--Bush is only up by 5 and he's under 50%. We can take him. BTW, let's rip Ralph Reed's guts out in FL. FL Dems, to war!!

by Yosef 52 on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 08:17:03 PM PST
47-42 does not Bush country make (none)

Kos, you're great and I love your blog. However, you have pretty much missed every possible election call since the advent of Howard Dean. (I like Dean, too, but I don't see him being the next President.)
This one is plain silly; I don't see why anyone would give it credibility. 47-42 is far from a done deal, even if it represented the numbers the night before the election.
Look before you leap.

by JP on Tue Mar 02, 2004 at 12:49:49 AM PST

Wasn't Gore up by 5 points in FL ? (none)

" 47-42 is far from a done deal, even if it represented the numbers the night before the election."
Actually, I believe Al Gore had about a 5 point lead in FL in some polls the week before the 2000 election. You know, I think he had a lead in the exit polls as well ....

by acerimusdux on Tue Mar 02, 2004 at 02:02:33 AM PST

[ Parent ]

A new way of doing business needed (none)

To paraphrase Chesterton, it's not that they can't see the solution, it's that they can't see the problem. The fact that the Dems have so many opinions about what ails the party is proof that no one knows what ails the party. It plays into the notion I have that it will get worse before it gets better. If Kerry goes down in flames, the so-called anti-Dean forces will be embracing, without complaint, a Dean clone in 2008.
What should scare the hell out of everybody is that the Dems don't know how to focus anger, or achieve lasting gains from Republican screw-ups. When the Dems last had control over all the levers of power on the national scene the emerging hostility towards that monopoly was tangible, it resulted in the Gingrich revolution. The Republicans swept the Dems out, they won in states they had no business competing in. The GOP had ultra-right wing nuts winning in places like Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Washington, then they did it again two years later in Oregon. What were the right wingers so pissed off about? Beats me. Gays in the military? Clinton wasn't exactly a Marxist, he was a Rockefeller Republican. If gays in the military fueled the conservative backlash, maybe dead soldiers in Iraq should fuel a Democratic counter-backlash, but I can't see this happening when the Democratic establishment is busy worrying about the national security cred of a man who is a highly decorated war vet.
Juxtapose the run-up to the 1994 elections with today. Democrats, progressives, independents should be frothing at the mouth. They have a 2000 election to avenge. They have Iraq, deficits, unemployment, environmental degradation, and John Ashcroft to throw out. Where is the Democratic wave? I don't see it. Dems doubt they can retake the House, the Senate is a long shot. Bush is vulnerable, but not DOA. If the Dems don't do major damage to the Republican cause in 2004, with a war hero running against an AWOL incompetent with one of the worst records of any president in history, it may be necessary to burn the Dems to the ground and start over. Dems should win Florida, whether Bush's brother is governor, or not, and if they don't, there is a malignancy in the organization that needs to be excised. The GOP didn't have the benefit of favorable districting in 1994, they won anyway, it's about time we start measuring ourselves against the Gingrich moment. The Dems blew it in 2002, anger should have delivered gains, not losses. Had Gore been president, 2002 would have been an object lesson in political fury by the right, and Dems would have reaped the whirlwind. 2002 reinforced the popular conception of the Democrats as listless, undisciplined, and ideologically incoherent. When the Republicans are in trouble, they run to their base, not to the middle.

by Robert Drake on Tue Mar 02, 2004 at 01:15:16 AM PST
How About Social Security? (none)

This poll was taken before Greenspan's speech. Surely Democrats can make gains in Florida on the grounds that what Greenspan proposed represents the real game plan of Republicans, despite their protests to the contrary.

by BobNJ on Tue Mar 02, 2004 at 10:36:13 AM PST
ARG poll looks better K45 B44 (none)

Florida
Likely Voters Mar 4
Bush 44%
Kerry 45%
Nader 4%
Undecided 7%
600 likely voters, March 3-4,
MOE ± 4 percentage points
This looks especially promising if you assume that a lot of the Nader vote peels away and goes to Kerry.

by jay l on Fri Mar 05, 2004 at 09:52:04 PM PST
(0 / 0)

by you on soon

If this is OK, click Post:

Or you may make changes below and Preview again, or Cancel this comment.

A deeper examination of the sheer joy of Oklahoma students chanting about hanging n*gg*rs from trees
Money, during a bad economy, doesn't actually disappear, it just moves around into different hands and different accounts. If a whole segment of America all of a sudden doesn't have money because ...
by Shaun King 247 comments 392 Recs
Victory for the internet in the FCC!
by Joan McCarter 165 comments 210 Recs
California's plastic bag ban stifled until 2016
Plastic is forever A few months ago Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 270 into law. It effectively ended the use ...
by Walter Einenkel 24 comments 18 Recs
Going Solar: An off-grid perspective on small-scale solar
I recently wrapped up installation on a medium sized off-grid solar system on my remote property in south-central Montana. I felt my story is worth telling, because it was easier and cheaper than ...
by EARTHWORKS 67 comments 148 Recs
Boehner: 'I love Mitch,' but this Homeland Security mess is all his fault
Let the finger pointing begin. ...
by Kerry Eleveld 106 comments 72 Recs
House GOP to fill empty seats with staffers to ensure 'standing ovations' for Netanyahu speech
He can practically taste his new war.
by Hunter 210 comments 160 Recs
Ku Klux Klan takes a stand with Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore
The seething, bigoted spectacle taking place in Alabama this week after becoming the latest state to join the nation in marriage equality has been predictably nauseating. With Alabama Chief ...
by Steven Payne 266 comments 250 Recs
10 Rush Limbaugh Sponsors To Boycott (With One Honorable Mention)
Many people want to make donations to causes the make a difference, but for some of us, funds are tight. One free and easy thing to do is avoid buying from companies that support hate speech, more ...
by Leslie Salzillo 150 comments 223 Recs
Kevin Davis wrongly killed by police after calling 911 for help
Kevin Davis did the right thing. On December 29, Kevin called 911 for help. His girlfriend, April, had just been stabbed and the man who did it, Terrance Hilyard, fled the scene. Within minutes, ...
by Shaun King 141 comments 417 Recs
Almost 1 billion monarch butterflies have vanished
Monarch Butterfly - Danaus plexippus The Washington Post ...
by Walter Einenkel 119 comments 226 Recs


Unpublish Diary (The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
Delete Diary (The diary will be removed.)

Daily Kos

News, Community, Action