I'm not sure if everyone really understands the real result of our gains in 2006, and coming gains of 2007.
I like to play around on 270towin.com, a website with a flashplayer interactive electoral map. Toying with different electoral possibilities, I feel like we did in 2006 - if the Democrats don't capitalize on the gains that we've made in TN, MO, VA, and MT, and the likely 2007 gain in Kentucky (added to their 2006 gain in Congress - Louisville is turner bluer...) - if we don't capitalize on those gains and focus a good deal of energy in getting out those voters, we're incredibly stupid. In addition, we need to focus a good deal of energy on our new early-caucus state, Nevada - with the extra attention there, and their power in the nomination, they could very well go for the blue team, as long as we have a candidate with wide appeal (Obama?)
Here's my predictions/thoughts/fortune-telling:
If we win what we did in 2004 (aka the bare minimum of Democratic states), and turn Nevada blue, we either can take Virginia alone (with a great deal of help from Warner and Webb), or take either Montana or Kentucky in combination with Missouri - and that's the ballgame. You could also substitute TN for Missouri. (TN + MT or KY = ballgame).
I may be overly optimistic, but I really think that we have a chance in Louisiana after Katrina - people were failed by the Republican government, and are more likely to participate in the process than before. I put it on my list of competitive states.
ANYWAY - here's the list. Take it as you will:
Deep red: AK, ID, UT, AZ, WY, CO, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, TX, IA, AR, IN, MS, AL, GA, FL, SC, NC, WV, OH - 221 electoral votes (I made the decision not to list Ohio or Florida as competitive - I don't like counting on them in my scenarios - let's plan to win without them...)
Deep Blue: WA, OR, CA, MN, WI, MI, IL, ME, VT, MA, RI, CT, NY, PA, DE, NJ, MD - 248 electoral votes.
Competitive:
Montana - Great gains with Tester. Brian Schweitzer incredibly popular. Great gains in the state - populist message will appeal. 3 electoral votes
Nevada - Moving up the primary=bad move for anyone hoping for a less than billion dollar campaign season (may the richest candidate win!), but puts Democrats in the state so much earlier and more often! Very good possibility that Nevada will be competitive. 5 electoral votes
New Mexico- Richardson won with ridiculous margin last year. Especially, but not necessarily, if he's on the ballot, New Mexico could very well be in play. They've voted for Republicans for years, but the wave could very well still be a'rollin'.5 electoral votes
Missouri - Big gains with McCaskill in '06. Nobody there likes Governor Blunt. Stem-Cell issue really got people to the polls, will do so again. St. Louis is getting more and more progressive with Democratic representatives. 11 electoral votes
Louisiana - Seriously, guys, this is just gut reaction - event though Gov. Blanco (D) is probably in trouble in '07, something about the Republican administration leaving bodies in the street and leaving your hometown in rubble for years after a terrible event leaves me thinking of the possibility of a Democratic uprising. Again, only a gut feeling. 9 electoral votes
Kentucky-The Republican infrastructure in KY is suffering big time - McConnell's staying as far away from the governor he practically appointed, and who is being heavily challenged by a defeated Congresswoman in his own party primary. If we don't win the Gov. mansion in KY, I'll be sorely disappointed. (BTW - progressives please check out Jonathan Miller, the State Treasurer running in the Democratic Primary. Progressives really have no other choice in this election (everyone else is pretty much a DINO). 8 electoral votes
Tennessee - With all of the racist crap and dirty campaigning and disappointing endings to the Ford campaign last year, I still believe it to be quite a gain for Democrats - paying attention to TN will pay off big time, I believe. 11 electoral votes
Virginia - Warner (HUGE POPULARITY), plus our gain in the Senate race last year - pour money into the state, campaigns - I don't think you'll regret it. 13 electoral votes
New Hampshire - I only list them because they can't seem to decide if they're red or blue. I think we should go everywhere, but maybe not worry about NH quite as much. Make it a competitive state, rather than concede it or think of it as blue, but... 4 electoral votes
UPDATE: Ohio: explained below.
total competitive: 69 electoral votes.
So that's it. 201 that will be pretty deep red. 248 that have demonstrated their tendency to be pretty deep blue. 69 competitive, most of which have never been competitive before. Looks like fun.
Part of the point, I suppose, is this: we need a progressive, but one with wide appeal. I'm not sure who that is, yet. I think Obama definitely has potential to be just that. Edwards? Maybe. The jury's still out on his ability to appeal to folks other than the Progressive Wing of the Democratic Party (which, need I remind you, isn't even the whole Democratic Party). Clinton - doubt it, although Hubby will be doing most of the campaigning in those difficult states, of which some/many voted for him at least once, if not twice.
The biggest point - don't even consider trying to think in terms of "traditional" (by traditional I mean the one's that were invented in 2004 by the Kerry/Edwards campaign losses) redstate/bluestate - this is a new year and a new election, and the odds are much different.
That's all. Let me know what you think.
UPDATES/CORRECTIONS: (BASED IN PART ON COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION)
Agreed about Ohio. As you'll see in some of my comment responses below, I regret not putting Ohio on the list of competitive states. I overlooked their good showing in 2006 and instead focussed on the desire not to repeat the mistakes of '00 and '04, namely focussing too much on Ohio and Florida and yet fighting in other possible places. I've place OHIO on the competitive list and taken it out of the Deep Red list.
As for other suggestions: I'm not impressed enough with Arizona to put it in the big money list. Sorry, but Kyl should have been gone - he handed it to you - and he's still there. Corrupt Senator in a D-trending year, and he's still there. And Lieberman gets to run the Democrats in the Senate with the threat of defection.
I'm also absolutely not buying the NC suggestion. honestly, you call my predictions longshots. Calling NC a blue trend is absurd - keep fighting, kick out Liddy, and perhaps I'll cede your point. However, I don't believe your assertion that she's vulnerable - unpopular as a campaign fundraiser, yes, but not vulnerable. And if the nominee is John Edwards, I don't think the anti-Edwards animosity in NC is just going to disappear overnight.
Next time I handicap the map, I'll give it some lighter shades. This is a very black/white (red/blue) kind of scenario, and there should be shades of grey. that's what makes it difficult to attribute competitiveness to, say IA.