Below is a question that popped into my mind after reading the following article:
http://www.latimes.com/...
Democrats have been hurt by the inability of their recent presidential candidates to wage competitive campaigns across a vast swath of the country. But the party emerged from this year's vote confident that in 2008, it can compete on a much wider playing field — especially in the West and several states on the fringe of the South.
"If you look at the results from '06, you see a lot of states that Democrats may be able to take ... if they can swing the center the way they did" this year, said Ruy Teixeira, a public opinion analyst at the liberal Center for American Progress think tank.
The article proceeds to describe impressive Democratic gains nationwide, except in the South and in particular...
Florida
What is the deal with Florida anyway?
In 2000, the state was decided by [insert random number varying by counting method] votes. 4 years later, Kerry lost it by a stinging margin, 52/47%. In Florida, that difference represents hundreds of thousands of voters. Was 2000 the product of a more liberal/Dem leaning Florida or was an abberation, from Lieberman's pronounced effect on the South Florida Jewish community?
I'm not certain, but I have a hard time believing those South Florida Gore voters would so readily accept Bush in 2004, even if he is a bit more palatable than the candidate so many of them chose in 2000 (Buchanan... ok bad joke :-) ). I'm also aware of allegations of systemic voting irregularities in the state in 2004 that were largely swept under the carpet. Scrutinizing them was moot because the margin of defeat there was so substantial.
If Florida is really that far out of our grasp, what if we throw in the towel there entirely?
One on hand, it frees up GOP spending to relocate it elsewhere, but isn't that preferable to squandering Democratic funds in a state that may be genuinely out of reach despite our hopes to the contrary?
For years, I've suspected that 2008 will play out primarily in the Southwest, Colorado, Ohio, Virginia, and the upper Midwest (Wisconsin and Iowa, not so much Minnesota which seems now reliably Big Blue). Pennsylvania, Washington, and Oregon simply have to come off the swing state radar if we have a strong Dem candidate since those states show no real signs of welcoming the dark side (18% margin of victory for Casey in PA and no Republican president elected there in almost two decades). It seems to me the challenge will be:
Keeping Wisconsin
Keeping New Hampshire (trends indicate this won't be too hard)
Winning back Iowa
Winning back New Mexico
Winning Nevada
Winning Colorado
Contesting Ohio
Contesting Virginia
Contesting Missouri
Testing the waters in Arkansas (trends Rep but strong Dem roots and big victories there in 2006)
Melting the GOP grip in Arizona to swing it in the 2010's and beyond
??? in Florida
Given a fairly close election, these 12 states strike me as the only genuine battlegrounds of 2008. I don't see Minnesota, Michigan, Tennessee, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Oregon, or Washington presenting any real opportunities for pick-ups absent a decisive victory or landslide. Of course, despite some Republican fantasizing, it should go without saying that New Jersey and Maryland are likewise off the map.
Note, I'm aware that the idea of "battleground states" seems anathema to the "50-State-Strategy" but practically speaking, no one is going to campaign for either candidate in Rhode Island or Utah unless we're approaching a unicolor map like 1984.
So the question remains: is it worth contesting Florida, or is that state just trending away to oblivion, meaning we'd be better off concentrating in the other 11?