"Can a Republican Win Without the NorthEast?"

[tedoll78]

The whole quote-Dean-out-of-context desperation dust-up today has me asking this:

Do we ever hear that question as much as we hear about Democrats winning in the South?
To answer my own question, no, we seldom hear about it.

Let's call the following states "The NorthEast" -->
PA, NY, DC, DE, MD, NJ, CT, MS, ME, VT, NH, RI.
Together, they will hold 116 electoral votes in 2004.

And my home, "The South":
LA, MS, AL, GA, FL, TN, AR, NC, SC, VA.
Together, they hold 119 electoral votes in 2004.

The regions seem pretty evenly-matched. Pretty evenly monolithic.

My question.. why do we never hear about the GOP needing to break-in and take a state or two in the NorthEast? It seems to me that the GOP takes it for granted that they will lose in the NorthEast, and so they divert their resources elsewhere.. the Great Lake States, the Heartland, the Rockies. It seems to have worked pretty well for them in the recent past.

And the Democrats? They still feel the need to throw money into going-after Southern states. Why is this? I'm betting that the majority here would give Democrats better chances of winning Ohio or Arizona or Missouri in 2004 than Tennessee or Louisiana.

(I'd also like to add.. I HATE THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM. It focuses the race on ten close states, and the rest of the states just fill their roles as chorus members in a Greek tragedy.)

And why does the media always ask about Democrats in the South? What about the GOP in the NorthEast? This seems pretty conveniently ignored. I like it here in the South; hell, I've lived here all my life and I plan on staying here because it's so nice. But for once - just once - I'd love to see the NorthEast dominate politics, or even the west coast! People my age (~25) have never seen politics dominated by leaders outside of the south. I'd love to see a major leading politician on tv without hearing the southern accent.

(flame me.. I don't care. Heaven forbid I speak openly.. like some presidential candidates..)

[JVS]

1. Bush won because he was able to crack off NH

We need to pay some attention to our strongholds because they are starting to slip away. Michigan and Pennsylvania shouldn't be swing states. Ohio is winable and if we can get it the GOP is screwed. We can't afford trying to make states that were 56% to 40% against us in 2000 into states that are closer but still defeats. Especially since we don't have as much money as the Republicans.

[RandomUser]

5. I'm worried about PA

It's only a matter of time. If not 2004, then certaintly after. PA is leaving the Dem column soon. And the republicans are definitely aware of it -- they're not ignoring the Northeast.

[tedoll78]

6. It's at the top..

of my Gore State Worry List.

[JVS]

7. Shit. Bush visits my hometown, Pittsburgh every few months

We know he wants western PA to become another Ohio.

[PaDUer]

20. Phila

also...he's making his rounds..don't forget he has his good buddy Santorum here in Scranton, and also Don Sherwood...

[abcdan]

18. Don't worry about PA

PA 2000 Pres. election results

Gore - 2,485,967 51%
Bush - 2,281,127 46%


PA 2002 Gov. election results

Rendell (D) - 1,898,214 53%
Fisher (R) - 1,584,566 45%


The states we should be more worried about are the states Gore carried by two or less percentage points.

Iowa (49 - 48)
Minnesota (48 - 46)
New Mexico (48 - 48)
Oregon (47 - 47)
Wisconsin (48 - 48)

They're a combined 40 electoral votes.

[JVS]

19. Those are of more immediate concern

But Bush is gunning at Pennsylvania too

[RandomUser]

24. PA is definitely a concern

1) Demographically, it's been trending increasingly republican. Santorum's anti-gay remarks didn't play that badly with his constituents. The culture there is split, with philly being Dem and western PA being republican. As a matter of fact, this split culture is even seen in language usage, I think. If I'm not mistaken, the soda/coke (or was it pop/soda?) line runs through the middle of PA.

2) Bush's steel tarriffs were a play for PA's steelworker support, even at the expense of southern states. Rove definitely had an eye to the 2004 elections when he and Bush concocted that deal.

3) There was talk of Tom Ridge being Bush's running mate before he pick Cheney. And one of the reasons that Bush picked Ridge for a cabinet post at Homeland Security was also to play to the PA crowd.

4) As noted by other posters, Bush is making frequent visits to PA.

It's only a matter of time before PA leaves the Dem column. Republicans are not as disinterested in the northeast as some might think. PA may not be as close as some of the other states, but it is definitely in play, and will be even more so in future elections (assuming the conservative demographic trend continues in western PA).

[robsul82]

25. Pennsyltucky...

...is a problem. A BIG one.

Later.

RJS

[dusty64]

26. That is true.

And only because of the strong nader vote there. Yes they can win without the NE or the West Coast. The key is all the swing states in between.

[onebigbadwulf]

2. I agree

That the electoral college is a worthless piece of crap. Basically if you live an extreme state, your vote for the opposition is worthless. It's the anti-thesis of democracy. The only 'democracy' where the minority somehow wins.

[tedoll78]

4. I'm actually urging..

certain people to vote Libertarian in 2004. People in Texas, Mississippi, Utah, ALabama.. if we can get them to hit 5%, they can get more attention, and they can peel-off more votes. The GOP can no longer say with a straight face that they are the party of small government.

[farmboxer]

3. Republican Manufactured And Programmed Voting Machines

are what Bush and his pals are counting on, and they are getting away with it, just like they got away with the coup of 2000.

[leftchick]

16. you nailed it farmboxer...all this other stuff is just

trivial shit. We need to make our vote count FIRST!

[foo_bar]

8. if it were 1861

Let's call the following states "The NorthEast" -->
PA, NY, DC, DE, MD, NJ, CT, MS, ME, VT, NH, RI.
Together, they will hold 116 electoral votes in 2004.

And my home, "The South":
LA, MS, AL, GA, FL, TN, AR, NC, SC, VA.
Together, they hold 119 electoral votes in 2004.

You're right, but only from the GOP's point of view. The pub convention's being held in New York precisely to embark a "Northern Strategy", but there's more upside potential for republicans in the Northeast. Democrats can more or less count on VT/RI/CT/NJ/MD/NY, so they have nothing to gain from trading off the "South". Also bear in mind Pennsylvania votes more like Georgia than Connecticut, and Texas/Kansas/Oklahoma isn't part of your antebellum Southern bloc.

[Dagaz]

9. Because the press wants Dems to win

They don't want Republicans to win in the Northeast so why encourage it? However, a Democrat win in a southern state would make them all happy, so just be happy that we have a very liberal press.

[jiacinto]

10. Look at 2000

Bush had little room for error to win without PA, IL, MI, or any of the other Northeastern states. Bush had to win every red state possible.

It is theoretically possible for Democrats to win without the South, but that leaves no room for error.

[elperromagico]

11. Depends on how you define the regions

Here's a list of the regions and their divisions as determined by the US Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/geo/www/us_regdiv.pdf).

The states in blue were won by Gore in 2000, the states in red by Bush. The electoral votes listed beside the state names are updated for the 2004 election.

Region 1: Northeast (101 electoral votes)
Division 1: New England (34 electoral votes)
Connecticut 7
Maine 4
Massachusetts 12
New Hampshire 4
Rhode Island 4
Vermont 3
Division 2: Middle Atlantic (67 electoral votes)
New Jersey 15
New York 31
Pennsylvania 21

Region 2: Midwest (124 electoral votes)
Division 3: East North Central (79 electoral votes)
Indiana 11
Illinois 21
Michigan 17
Ohio 20
Wisconsin 10
Division 4: West North Central (45 electoral votes)
Iowa 7
Kansas 6
Minnesota 10
Missouri 11
Nebraska 5
North Dakota 3
South Dakota 3

Region 3: South (189 electoral votes)
Division 5: South Atlantic (99 electoral votes)
Delaware 3
District of Columbia 3
Florida 27
Georgia 15
Maryland 10
North Carolina 15
South Carolina 8
Virginia 13
West Virginia 5
Division 6: East South Central (34 electoral votes)
Alabama 9
Kentucky 8
Mississippi 6
Tennessee 11
Division 7: West South Central (56 electoral votes)
Arkansas 6
Louisiana 9
Oklahoma 7
Texas 34

Region 4: West (124 electoral votes)
Division 8: Mountain (44 electoral votes)
Arizona 10
Colorado 9
Idaho 4
New Mexico 5
Montana 3
Utah 5
Nevada 5
Wyoming 3
Division 9: Pacific (80 electoral votes)
Alaska 3
California 55
Hawaii 4
Oregon 7
Washington 11

[CreekDog]

12. Arkansas

Possible red state pickup. In two years, Democratic registration has shot up 8 points. Also, consider Wesley Clark's effect on the race, since he is both from the South and from Arkansas. He could peel off another red state in the south under the right circumstances.

He could really turn the race on its head if he runs on the following:

The candidate that can fix the Iraq mess this pres created
The candidate that stands for the military and smart defense
The candidate of diversity (look at the military)

If he takes reasoned positions on other democratic issues and uses his gift of stating political opinions in ways that some republicans and many independents relate to, he could take the election in a landslide.

It's almost an impossible task. We'll see if he can do it. No other candidate is 'naturally' as well positioned as Clark is. Dean is positioned to get the nomination because he worked his as* off to get it --but will have more mountains to climb should he get the nomination.

We'll see!

[NewJeffCT]

13. Gore lost Tennessee

That is embarrassing for a candidate to lose his home state...

[jsw_81]

28. Bush lost America

It's embarrassing for a candidate to lose his home country.

[elperromagico]

14. I can definitely see Arkansas going Dem

There is certainly a pattern there. Arkansas was the only state to vote out an incumbent Republican senator in '02, and 3 of our representatives are Dems who won by large majorities. The governor and lieutenant governor are both Republicans, but all other statewide offices are held by Democrats (all of whom won by substantial majorities).

I'd say a Democratic candidate (particularly Clark) could definitely bring Arkansas back over to the D column.

[robsul82]

15. Don't discount Louisiana...

...take the senators both being Dems, the governor's runoff race looks like a Democratic win, and just the local voices and attitudes I hear daily, and I think Louisiana's in play for 2004.

Later.

RJS

[jiacinto]

17. In 1996 it was Clinton's best state in the south outside of AR

It should be targeted.

[robsul82]

21. Exactly...

...Get the Landrieus to help and it'll be a state to watch.

Later.

RJS

[jiacinto]

23. Yeah

LA should be targetd.

[aldian159]

22. relax, IL is in the bag

A few numbers:

Gore won Chicago proper 80-19 and Cook County (chicago and some suburbs) 69-29. That's about half the state, meaning Bush would have had to won 65% of the rest of the state to carry IL. Southern part is Democrat (Union plus African-American). Living in Chicago, we've already decided that Bush is crap and we can most likely give you a Senate seat to counteract the "loss" of Zell. My good friend is on the state GOP and he says (he's very honest) that the RNC isn't giving IL a dime. Now, if we could just get OH. We'll get WV again, hopefully.

[jiacinto]

27. IL should be safe

nt

[aldian159]

29. everyone needs to go out and read

The emerging Democratic Majority.
john B. Judis
Ruy Teixeria

Uses facts and logic to prove how we win for the rest of the decade