The Democratic Plan for Victory (with pictures!)

[WilliamPitt]

Victory in the Electoral College requires 270 votes. Let's do some math. In order to win in 2004, the Democrats need to take:

California: 54
Washington: 11
Minnesota: 10
Michigan: 18
Wisconsin: 11
New York: 33
Massachusetts: 12
Connecticut: 4
Rhode Island: 8
Vermont: 3
Maine: 4
New Jersey: 15
Illinois: 22
Hawaii: 4
Maryland: 10
Delaware: 3
District of Columbia: 3

That comes to 225 Then come some battleground states.

Oregon: 7
Pennsylvania: 23
New Mexico: 5
New Hampshire: 4

That comes to 264. We are 6 away. What states do we fight for?

Ohio: 21

or

Arkansas: 6
West Virginia: 5

You'll notice I left off Florida. My opinion is that winning in Florida requires trusting the election process in a banana republic. No sale here. No money should be spent in Florida.

The game is in Ohio and those battleground states. If we take Ohio, we can lose some of those other states, but not many.

Which candidates will sell best in Ohio?

This is what we won in 2000:

[teevee]

1. why does

wisconsin count for twice? what is it? 11 or 3 electoral votes?

[WilliamPitt]

2. Oops!

Lemme fix. It's 11.

[RetroLounge]

3. Because we are twice as nice!

:)

[hippiechick]

7. We get counted twice to make up for Tommy Thompson

and what he's done to HHS in the last 3 years :) ...


:hippie:

[DK666]

10. I thought

It was the CHEESE ;)

[WilliamPitt]

12. Whatever it is, I fixed it.

[a_random_joel]

4. Thanks Will!

Nicely done. I don't know about about Ohio, but Arkansas seems deliverable by Clark(as VP or P). Maybe even another Southern state or two as well.

[WilliamPitt]

11. My dad says no to that

He's the chairman of the Dem party in Alabama, and we've talked about the South. I mentioned Clark delivering Arkansas, and he said that was farfetched. He doesn't think we have a chance to take any Southern states. We will take 43-48% if we work it, but we won't take any.

West Virginia is easier without Gore. Clinton admin had sued the coal industry before the election, and the coalminers were convinced Gore would kill their livlihood. WVA is a traditional Dem state otherwise.

Ohio is the ballgame.

[CMT]

21. ? For you regarding Alabama

since your father is the state chairman (and almost won the state for the Democrats in the gov election in '02)--is there any hope for dems in a state like Alabama in '04? I know they have a strong minority vote. If it got mobilized strongly--what percentage of the white vote would the dem nominee need to get to win Alabama?

[WilliamPitt]

26. The only way a Dem wins in Alabama in 2004

is if Roy Moore runs for President. Bush will get 25%, the Dem will get the same, and Moore will split the rest. It might happen, but Morre is apparently leaning towards running for Governor instead.

[Think Globally]

56. The South

Forget all of it. Any Democrat that would win anywhere there isn't a real Democrat! We have to win in the north and the west coast, and the way to do that is with a REAL Democrat who appeals to real Democratic voters, not a Bush clone.

[Lurking Dem]

89. Think globally

but write off the South? Hehehe. Cute.

Electorally speaking it can be done but as I and other Dems who live in the South can tell you, I don't think it is necessary.

If the rest of the country does decide to write us off, please let me know so I can stop the apparent waste of my time volunteering/getting voters registered/getting people to polls and working for candidates.

[jumptheshadow]

66. With all due respect to your father

Clinton carried Arkansas. Why couldn't Clark do it?

[WilliamPitt]

80. Clinton was Governor for years and was a known commodity

Clark goes back to Arkansas for Christmas, maybe.

[Phelan]

81. His companies HQ is located in Little Rock, so I think he does life there.

[WilliamPitt]

83. Still, Clinton had several terms as a statewide officeholder

Huuuuuuuuuuuge difference. A lot of people live in Arkansas with Clark. Clinton ran the joint for about a decade. Big difference.

[Lurking Dem]

90. From Clark's website...

Wes Clark and his wife Gert have been married for 36 years. They live in Little Rock, Arkansas and they have one son, Wesley, a screenwriter who lives in Los Angeles with his wife, Astrid Clark.

[Phelan]

79. Bama

Wish I could have pm'd this but, my post count is too low.

From what I understand from talking to people close to Giles Perkins here in Birmingham, Kerry is who the party heads in Alabama are flirting with. (not that we really matter in the big picture since a Dem winning President in Alabama is not very realistic.) But rumour has it that Clintons campaign manager Saxon may run the Clark campaign in the near future.

I volunteer for Alabama for Clark and whenever we've shown up at Dem events in the past not only are we the only grassroots organization with a presence and people are extremely receptive.
If you are going to be in Alabama next Monday (12/01/03), we have a meeting at La Cocina 2111 7th Ave. S Birmingham at 7PM , we are hoping for a very substancial turn out. Hope to see you there.

Peter K

[mrgorth]

5. I think

Gep, Dean and Clark would all do well in OH and WV. Clark obviously does better in NC and AK but I'n not sure how much. He needs more of a drawl.

[RetroLounge]

6. Wisconsin may not be a sure thing

but it helps that we have a Dem Gov here now. and 2 Dem Senators.

and most of the Candidates have offices and staff in place.

Dean is in full swing here and is coming back again this week.

Clark has been here a couple of times, too, and gotten good press.

Not sure about the others.

Ohio will be important, that's for sure...

[CMT]

14. I agree

I'm from Wisconsin too and at best it is a toss up which leans slightly democratic given its voting record since '88. But Gore won it only narrowly in '00.

It will help our nominee having Feingold on the ballot because he will really bring out the Democratic vote.

[felonious thunk]

8. Maryland/Arizona

Maryland is 10 for the Democrat. They might have elected a Republican governor, but there's little chance that Bush will take Maryland. Also don't count out our chances in Arizona. I know that it's tended Republican, but it's a state very much in flux and becoming more urbanized. I think the Democrat has a chance there. Get those two and West Virginia, and Ohio isn't even necessary. The 7 in Iowa are possible too.

[WilliamPitt]

13. Maryland!

Right! Gotta fix again.

[WilliamPitt]

15. Delaware, too

3 more.

[felonious thunk]

16. Don't forget the 3 for DC too!

I have more chance of winning DC than Bush does!

[WilliamPitt]

19. Got it

[a_random_joel]

25. Good call!

DC almost always goes DEM.

[CMT]

9. Ohio

Gore blew it. He thought he had no shot of winning it so he pulled out advertising and abandoned the state three weeks before the election. In the end he lost it by only four-percentage points. It was the only big industrial state of the northeast and midwest he lost.

Ohio must be a major target for the eventual nominee. It can be won. Carter won it. Clinton won it.

[WilliamPitt]

17. Correct

They went blank for three weeks. I thought the margin was 3%.

[VOX]

40. The fight in Ohio could be for the whole basket of chips.

Resources would be best spent in the Buckeye State, IMO.

[Andy_Stephenson]

77. Ohio is over as we speak

one word....Diebold

[Lurking Dem]

18. Tennessee

voted in a Democratic Governor in '02 which could help swing it back Dem.

[WilliamPitt]

20. See post #11

[Lurking Dem]

36. I disagree.

Politically, Tennessee is much more swing-able than some others and Clark is playing well here.

[Nashyra]

22. Yucca mountain could give Nevada to the dems

[a_random_joel]

23. You forgot

Iowa and New Mexico... battlegrounds that Gore won.
Clearly in play this time around. I also think New Hampshire will be in play in '04 as well.

[WilliamPitt]

27. I put New Mexico in the battleground category

Have to think about the other one.

[a_random_joel]

29. Oops

Missed that, my bad.

[truthspeaker]

24. Minnesota is NOT a sure thing

We've seen quite a Republican resurgence here recently as the rural and urban populations decline and the suburban population grows. Meanwhile our DFL leaders seem to think it's still 1968. The right wing is very well organized. Also our Gov and Secretary of State are Republicans so I wouldn't rule out voter fraud ala Florida.

[WilliamPitt]

28. True

But I am crossing my fingers.

[northernsoul]

50. we'll give 'em hell for ya, Will

I'm looking forward to getting in the trenches next year, but I'm nervous...

[indigo32]

55. I'll be there with ya NorthernSoul

I'll be there with ya

[northernsoul]

48. unfortunately, that's true

the days of MN being a lock for Team Blue are over for the foreseeable future...
:-(

[VelmaD]

30. It's so very sad...

to know that my state doesn't have a hope in hell of goin Dem in '04. :-(

What I wouldn't give though to sit down for a day or 3 with your dad and talk about what could be done in the South. There has to be a way to mobilize minority voters and reach out to anglos and win in the South. If we don't, then things can only get uglier in this country. *sigh*

[THUNDER HANDS]

38. it would be easier if every Southern liberal just left the South

A mass migration North would do this country well. Lets lock up everything north of the Mason-Dixon line and we can OWN this country for as long as we want.

[Think Globally]

60. Better yet

Migrate North, expell the entire South, and form a union with Canada! (Wishful thinking:))

[kentuck]

31. Dems have been doing pretty good in Louisiana lately....

And jobs will be be a big issue in Ohio and West Virginia, no matter if the economy is going good elsewhere. Bush won West VA. and KY mostly by throwing goodies to the coal industry, and it is my understanding that many coal mining jobs have been lost under Bush.

[CMT]

35. yes and

Louisiana has one of the highest unemployment rates in the south.

[THUNDER HANDS]

32. you're being very optimistic

We lost three of those battleground states last time. Do you really think we can pick up both Pennsylvania, New Mexico and New Hampshire?

I say we aim for Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Mexico and Florida. Now, you can't just write-off Florida, it was closer than Ohio was for us, same for Pennsylvania.

Now, as to which candidate would do best in Ohio - I don't think it matters. I think ANY candidate we put up there will do as well as any other candidate would.

This election is going to be a referrendum on Bush. It's going to be won or lost based on what people think of him. Not what people think of Democratic Candidate X.

IMO.

[WilliamPitt]

34. Wrong about Pennsylvania

This is what we won in 2000:

[THUNDER HANDS]

41. well then...

We should go for Ohio and Florida. If we get those we don't have to spend money in about five or six other, smaller, states.

[WilliamPitt]

43. See post #42

[Ramsey]

58. Pennsylvania pro & con

Pro: Since 2000, we now have a Democratic governor who won largely on the strength of turnout in the southeast and Pittsburgh areas. Same for our newly re-elected Philadelphia mayor, whose run-in with the feds energized the democratic base to vote in high numbers.
People in the populous Philly area are registered Dem 4-to-1, and we are all PISSED OFF ROYALLY at Bush Inc. Look for good turnouts in this region. Rendell will campaign mightily for the Dem nominee, and he is a great campaigner. He ran these glowing ads for John Street, whom he supposedly loathes. There will be a challenge to Arlen Specter from the Dems next year, probably from Joe Hoeffel, a popular Congressman from the southeast, another boost to the all important voter turn out (my apologies to Charlie Crystal for assuming Hoeffel will be the Dem nominee).

Cons: The serious challenge to Specter might also energize the right wingers to vote as well, although he doesn't inspire the same fanatical support from the wingnutters as Sanctorectum does. The middle of the state is still largely Alabama. A candidate like Dean however might go a little way towards negating their paranoia about gun control liberals.

PA is definitely a good possibility for the Dem.

[felonious thunk]

61. The right doesn't like Specter though

I'm really surprised they aren't pushing to fight him in the primary. I think the danger is that Bush energizes the right wingers in PA, and that by default helps Specter. I think with Rendell there, and the anger toward Bush in Pilly and Pittsburgh, Bush and Specter could both end up losing in PA.

[goobergunch]

64. They are

The Pat Toomey primary challenge is evidence of that.

[a_random_joel]

39. I agree about Fla

But I also understand why Will is not including it. If it goes our way in 04 great - that's gravy - but you can't plan a strategy around it in 04 based on the events of 00. Of course if Graham is a Veep nominee, who knows?

[WilliamPitt]

42. How can we possibly trust the process down there?

They've had four more years to boll weevil into the process? We're going to be outspent 10-1 at least all across the country. Money into Florida is gambling with a crooked deck, and we don't have the chips to spare.

[a_random_joel]

49. Understood

Money spent in Fla must be minimal, targeted, and well-spent.

[THUNDER HANDS]

52. we don't have the chips to spare?!?!?!?

Will, we can kiss the election goodbye if we don't make a play for Florida. We CAN'T win without it.

I'd rather put all my chips onto Florida and let them ride then spread my chips out over three or four states and have to spend time and money and energy flying all over the place.

We "lost" by less than 550 votes in 2000. And Nader probably won't run again. We'd be as clueless as ever if we DIDN'T go all-out after Florida.

Although, to be fair, if we had gotten New Mexico or West Virginia Florida would have been moot.

But I'm less confident we can take either of those two states than I am that we can take Florida. Because I'm fully confident that we DID take Florida in 2000.

And I think Florida Democrats will come out in full force to right the wrongs of four years ago.

[WilliamPitt]

54. We didn't lose at all in Florida

In fact, we won by a margin of between 90,000 and 200,000 votes. That's the point.

[Think Globally]

65. Florida

As I understand it, the final recount by the Associated Press gave Bush the win by 527 votes, but there were over 175,000 ballots that couldn't be deciphered. Granted, the AP isn't the most reliable source of information, but I think the lure of $$$ would have outweighed their pro-Bush bias if they'd found Gore had really won.

The point is, except for Miami, Palm Beach, and a couple college towns, Florida might as well be South Georgia and isn't worth it.

[Ramsey]

69. Another map

Sorry I can't post this from work, but here's the link to a map of political contributions by county. It looks like there are hardly any Democrats anywhere in Florida, at least not Democrats making any political contributions. According to this map, Florida is a s solidly Repug as Texas. There are a half dozen other Southern states that have a lot more blue counties (Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Missouri, Mississippi and North Carolina). It also has New Mexico, Arizona and Oklahoma in the Dem category.

http://www.fundrace.org/moneymap.php?cand=RepVDem&zoom=County

[SahaleArm]

85. According to that map Seattle would be Republican.

Republicans can usually count on winning 15% or less of the Seattle area votes.

[Ramsey]

63. Why not in 2002?

Why didn't the angry Dems throw out Jeb in 2002? I am not conviced that the Florida Dems are either energized or angry enough to turn the state to the Dem candidate. We didn't see any evidence of it in 2002. Given the probable election rigging going on down there, the turn out would have to create a landslide.

[Capn Sunshine]

45. I think we can pick up all three of those states, easy

Would be nice to sieze Fla with the overwhelming dem majority there but I agree with Wills banana republic take.

[lupita]

57. You can count on Oregon!

Gore won here, and Dean has had a great deal of help here.
I think we can count on it!

[a_random_joel]

33. Check these out

Missourri - 50 to 47
New Hampshire - 48 to 47
Nevada - 50 to 46
Arizona - 51 to 46
Tennesse - 51 to 47
Arkansas - 51 to 46 (Tenn and Ark are significant because almost all other Southern states have double digit margins of victory)

These are Bush's margins of victory in these states. I think they are all possibly in play.

[jumptheshadow]

68. As I have posted in the past

I think we will win Missouri with Clark at the head of the ticket. I know the state well, and I think that Clark will carry the swing voters in the well-heeled suburban areas there.

[KG]

37. you got the right idea re: FL

as long as jeb is gov, the elections will be rigged.

[Bucky]

44. Subtract 30. We can not count on Oregan & Pennsylvania

Of course if we can't take PA, then forget about it all-- we can't win.

But in addition to Minnesota (haven't Democrats lost most of the major races there in the past few years? Didn't Bush nearly win there too?), I think Oregon and Pennsylvania will be incredible uphill battles. Assuming they're modeately easy wins is typical Democratic rosy glasses. I'd consider Arkansas an easier win than Pennsylvania. Unless it's Dean, of course.

[Donna Zen]

62. Last Arkansas poll

I saw was Clark ahead of Bush by 10.

I have to leave but will see what I can dig up later.

[felonious thunk]

46. To reverse things a bit

Here's what the Republicans are looking at to get 270:

Virginia: 13
North Carolina: 14
South Carolina: 8
Georgia: 13
Florida: 25
Alabama: 9
Miss: 7
Louisiana: 9
Arkansas: 6
Texas: 32
Okla: 8
Kansas: 6
Nebraska: 5
South Dakota: 3
North Dakota: 3
Montana: 3
Wyoming: 3
Colorado: 8
Idaho: 4
Utah: 5
Kentucky: 8
Indiana: 12
Alaska: 3

That only gives 207. They need to get 63 from this group:
Missouri: 11
Minnesota: 10
Wisconsin: 11
Michigan: 18
Pennsylvania: 23
New Hampshire: 4
Oregon: 7
Nevada: 4
Ohio: 21
Tennessee: 11
Arizona: 8

If we take PA and Ohio and Michigan, it's going to be tough to get the 63 they need from this group loosely defined swing group. Have I forgotten anyone in there?

[a_random_joel]

53. I think Arkansas

deserves to be in the lower group. There are a few other "battlegrounds" - Iowa and New Mexico for sure.

[apsuman]

73. Your votes are off too...

The 2004 electoral votes are included in bold Corrected math is also in bold. And, I put an asterisk (*) next to every state that Bush won in 2000.

Here's what the Republicans are looking at to get 270:

*Virginia: 13 ->13
*North Carolina: 14 ->15
*South Carolina: 8 ->8
*Georgia: 13 ->15
*Florida: 25 ->27
*Alabama: 9 ->9
*Miss: 7 ->6
*Louisiana: 9 ->9
*Arkansas: 6 ->6
*Texas: 32 ->34
*Okla: 8 ->7
*Kansas: 6 ->6
*Nebraska: 5 ->5
*South Dakota: 3 ->3
*North Dakota: 3 ->3
*Montana: 3 ->3
*Wyoming: 3 ->3
*Colorado: 8 ->9
*Idaho: 4 ->4
*Utah: 5 ->5
*Kentucky: 8 ->8
*Indiana: 12 ->11
*Alaska: 3 ->3

That only gives 207 ->212. They need to get 63 ->58 from this group:
*Missouri: 11 ->11
Minnesota: 10 ->10
Wisconsin: 11 ->10
Michigan: 18 ->17
Pennsylvania: 23 ->21
*New Hampshire: 4 ->4
Oregon: 7 ->7
*Nevada: 4 ->5
*Ohio: 21 ->20
*Tennessee: 11 ->11
*Arizona: 8 ->10

So if Bush only carries the exact same states that he did in 2000 (including WV not listed above) he wins with 278 electoral votes.

I really don't know how you take Minn, Oregon, or Wisconsin to be swing states but that's ok.

I really believe that Bush/Rove planned to govern to win PA ake those 21 out of teh DEM column and put them in the REP column.

I expect that Bush would be much more conservative in a second term.

[Lorien]

47. Unless we put some "active"

in "activism", winning much of anything is going to be tough. I just visited the "Activism and Events" forum, and I think I saw a few tumbleweed drift by while I was there. Repugs win because they ACT; they send letters to advertisers, media outlets, representatives, they call radio stations, they sign petitions, they picket...we have a few DUers who do the same (like Bev Harris), but sadly any band thread in the lounge is going to see ten times the posts of any thread in "Activism and events". The repugs have shouted us down. We can't wait for a charasmatic leader to emerge-hell, our "leaders" only tell us what's wrong with the world, rarely do they call anyone to take part in a specific action to save it. We MUST organize if we are to have a real chance in 2004. We MUST take action beyond posting on DU and protesting. Please,visit the "Activism and Events" forum and breathe some life into it!

[Lorien]

84. No takers, I see

Democracy! Is it worth fighting for?

Nah, pass the chips. Gonna watch me some reruns, make a few posts about Jacko or Paris Hilton. Nobody REALLY reads those letters to my congressman. Phone calls are worthless. They're gonna steal our votes anyway! It's not like activism ever stopped a TV mini series from airing or even stopped people from counting votes!

Seriously. I know a lot of you are activists, but it just isn't enough. The optimistic predictions here can ONLY be accomplished with action-MORE action than has occured in years. Pledge yourself to changing a freepers mind. Pledge yourself to writing one letter a week, or making a single phone call. American is worth it.

[WilliamPitt]

91. Well

In the 40,000+ miles I have traveled in this country in the last five months, I have met a progressive army dedicated to doing exactly what you are talking about. We are way, way stronger than we know.

[mdmc]

51. Ohio - Dean / Gephardt (Clark)

I think what will be needed is a corp of voluenteers willing to travel to Ohio and GOTV. This will fortify the candidate with extra resources to carry Ohio. Dean is the only candidate with the orginization to pull Ohio. __ How did these states (esp. Ohio) trend during 2001, 2002, 2003 (was it all GOP or was there some give and take)?

[Lady President]

59. Kerry, Clark, or Gephardt

As an Ohioan I think those are the three best choices for Ohio. Kerry and Clark have the military background which will be important in Ohio and Gep is the tried and true union candidate. They are also the three that my Republican friends and family members have said they would seriously consider.

Ohio is a rather complicated state. It's practically in Canada, but the southern third of the state talks and acts like the South. The northwest corner which is strongly Dem. will vote based on job security. Central Ohio is primarily a white collar city where the Republicans have fled to the suburbs. Columbus proper is very liberal with a strong gay community and a vocal minority leadership. Of course, the remainder of the state is more rural.

Bottom line, Ohio can be won, but we need a huge voter registration drive and real support from the nominee.

[AmericanDem]

67. Thanks for the post

It's great seeing thing laid out like this.

[apsuman]

70. Your elctoral votes are off...

I agree with your premise but your electoral votes are off, I have added the (i think) correct figures in bold and corrected your math with new totals, again in bold

Victory in the Electoral College requires 270 votes. Let's do some math. In order to win in 2004, the Democrats need to take:

California: 54 55
Washington: 11 11
Minnesota: 10 10
Michigan: 18 17
Wisconsin: 11 10
New York: 33 31
Massachusetts: 12 12
Connecticut: 4 7
Rhode Island: 8 4
Vermont: 3 3
Maine: 4 4
New Jersey: 15 15
Illinois: 22 21
Hawaii: 4 4
Maryland: 10 10
Delaware: 3 3
District of Columbia: 3 3

That comes to 225 220 Then come some battleground states.

Oregon: 7 7
Pennsylvania: 23 21
New Mexico: 5 5
New Hampshire: 4 4

That comes to 264 257. We are 6 13 away. What states do we fight for?

Ohio: 21 20

or

Arkansas: 6 6
West Virginia: 5 5

Assuming you are correct with everything in your post, the Arkansa/West Virginia strategy is useless it does not get you enough electoral votes. I think Ohio is in play.

But, I think that Bush has all along tried to place himself in the postision to take PA and that is the basic version of his election strategy. The steel tariffs were, imho, designed to woo the PA and to a lesser extent, the WV coal mining steel making voters.

So, I think that PA is in play.

Successful/popular governing by the republican govenors of MD and CA might put those states in contention.

The real problem that the DEMS have in 2004 is that Bush will have enough money to fight in close states that are traditionally DEMs, and the fact that there are more democratic senator's terms that are up in 2004 requiring more party resources to try to hang onto those seats.

[fujiyama]

75. Florida seems

very unlikely to be won. A lot of us were hoping Jeb would be thrown out '02, but instead he won by a pretty huge margin.

It seems like Gore really made a mistake in not campaigning more in OH. I can't for the life of me imagine why he pulled the resources out...Well it was probably the polls showing him behind by many points, but he should have kept at it. Instead, I think the campaign put a lot of resources in FL, which they would have won, if not for massive fraud.

Let's not count out the small states that have only 3-4 EVs. These add up. We need to turn the Northeast completely blue, which means NH must be won.

The west coast must remain the left coast. We can't afford to lose OR or WA. WA is most likely to go our way, but OR is a little more indefinite.

What's important to note is that Nader recieved significant support in both NH and OR. I can't see those voters not going with the dem. nominee.

We also can't afford to lose three very important states -- MN, IA, and WI. I really don't see us losing MI, unless we really screw up.

So I would say William Pitt is right for the most part. It really comes down to OH.

I would also put resources in WV, and possibly among the following: AR, LA, NV, AZ, MO. I think we have some chance in those states, assuming we put up a candidate that is able to connect with people.

[apsuman]

78. Gore and Ohio

I disagree, Gore's problem (well, one of them) was he didn't even win his own state.

In Tennessee you can vote early. My dad voted early. The republicans were working a huge get out the vote effort. Gore didn't do that, IMHO, to his own demise.

While Ohio is a very impotant state, if Bush could negate losing Ohio if he wins Minnesota and Wisconsin.

On the other hand, the DEM nominee MUST win PA.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

71. No one has won without Ohio

for something like 100 years, if ever. We must take Ohio.

[KittyWampus]

72. We Could Win Florida If Our Candidate Polls Over MOE

Thus making "too close to call" meaningless.

If we had a ticket who polled consistently at about 55% statewide in Florida how could steal the election?

IMO, this will be the case nationwide. Electronic voting is already spread around the US.

Which candidate will appeal to Independants and Moderate Republicans to push us over the MOE?

[drfemoe]

74. What's the plan

if the election is 'cancelled'?

[remfan]

76. A Dem can take WV but only if they are willing to really work for it

The bushies, Rove in particular, have a VERY good relationship with our lone repuke representative (Capito - 2nd District), and they've made it QUITE apparent they intend to keep WV in their column. bush has been here 4 times that I can remember, Cheney's been here, Pickles has been here, Ridge has been here, Evans has been here...

If the Dems ignore WV this time around, we'll go red and stay red for a long time. Dems here are DINOs for the most part, but the people of this state would LOVE to have the attention of a national party candidate and it really does NOT matter which party, the attention is what matters.

I know it's only 5 votes, but we all know the difference those 5 votes would have made in 2000, don't we?

[Sufi Marmot]

82. We should NOT give up on Florida...

Don't forget, Nader got 97000+ votes in Florida in 2000. Being VERY conservative, if only 1/5 of those people voted for the Democratic candidate this time, that would be ~19000 votes the GOP has to make up from the start, everything else being equal.

What other demographic/political trends will influence voter turnout in Florida in 2004? Lots of retirees in Fla, could anger over the GOP Medicare bill work in our favor?


-SM

[VolcanoJen]

86. OHIO, Will! We must fight for the Buckeye State.

I'm tellin' ya, as a lifelong Buckeye, that this state has a great, seething Democratic base that will vote against Bush if given the best option for doing so. This should be THE battleground state, with 21 phatty electoral votes. Had Gore won Ohio in '00 (he only lost by 5 or so points), Florida wouldn't have mattered one little bit.

Hoping that we've learned our lesson, and that we realize that carrying the industrial midwest (Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania) would free us from worry about the southern states,

Jennifer

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

93. the most hardcore yellow dog Dems I know are from Ohio

I think you people are like some weird cult personally! :)

No one wins without Ohio.

[jsw_81]

87. Your electoral analysis is seriously flawed, William

You're using old electoral college data. In 2004 several states will have more (or fewer) votes. California, for example, will cast 55 electoral votes. And Florida will cast 27.

[WilliamPitt]

88. Right, I got that in another post

My bad. The numbers crunch out pretty much the same though: Win every state we won before + Ohio and West Virginia. Leave Florida alone.

[salin]

92. What you are missing.... is the

overwhelming influence the progressive community in lil ole college town indiana has on the entire state... which will turn it into a big ole blue state... until folks realize that this would mean the state would show kentucky blue over hoosier big red... oh... guess you have it right after all :D

[KansDem]

94. Call me naïve, but…

I would think that Florida is in play for the Democrats based on two events since Shrub seized the White House:

1. Iraq War--with no purpose for being there, no plan for exiting, and the greater realization that Bush lied to commit US troops there (no WMDs, "yellow-cake" fabrication, etc), the military vote could go more to the Democrat than Bush, particularly if attention was given to Bush's desire to cut VA benefits and the like;

2. The Medicare boondoggle--since there are many retired persons living in Florida, one might predict that the anger directed at Bush for his Medicare privatization plans would translate into more votes for the Democrat, especially if campaign ads hammered at Bush's desire to enrich his friends at the expense of the nation's elderly.

We mustn’t forget that the Democrats won Florida in 2000. :kick:

[frustrated_lefty]

95. It would be a mistake to write off Louisiana.

Blanco defeated Jindal, and the unemployment rate in the state is horrendous. Estimates are that roughly 50% of working age adults are unemployed in New Orleans alone. I think the Dems could take Louisiana's 9 electoral votes without much effort, it would be silly to skip it.

[zorkpolitics]

96. Forget FL, B*sh ahead by 20 points

Recent Orlando Sentinel Poll has B*sh 20 points ahead of any democrat.
Go for Ohio, NV, AZ, CO