The Electoral College 2004

[mndemocrat_29]

Looking at the states that Al Gore won in 2000, one would think that winning them all would be a painstakingly easy race. Indeed, the states range from the liberal New England, to the Democratic Great Lakes states, to the farm, labor, and education friendly areas of the Midwest, to the progressive Western Coast. The shocking thing about Al Gore’s campaign was that he couldn’t capture one of the Southern swing states, which would be the most difficult to defend in 2004. Therefore, Democrats shouldn’t have too much difficulty keeping their Democratic states. Only a few states remain vulnerable for the Democrats. I listed the Gore states, from safest to most vulnerable. Here’s an analysis of the five most likely to be targeted by Republicans along with the candidate who would most likely retain the seat (I chose the top three candidates based on current popularity, geography, and their reputation on the issues. I only used the nine announced candidates for the most likely to win titles.)

5. Oregon
Oregon barely went for Gore in 2000 (only 7000 votes difference). However, Oregon has joined the Pacific Coast trend and continues to go for Democrats. The recent election of a Democratic governor only proves this further. Ralph Nader received five percent of the vote here, so if Democrats could just tap into that voting bloc, we’d be set in this state. A candidate with a good environmental record would help here.
Candidates most likely to win here: Dean, Kerry, or Graham

4. New Mexico
Like Oregon, New Mexico went for Gore by a microscopic margin (a little more than 300 votes). In 2002, New Mexico (also like Oregon) voted for a Democratic governor (by an overwhelming margin). New Mexico has a large block of Hispanic voters, so a huge Democratic turnout with Hispanics could seal the deal in New Mexico. Since no Pacific Coasters appear to be jumping into this race, Southern candidates could do well here.
Candidates most likely to win here: Graham, Edwards, or Lieberman

3. Wisconsin
The top three most vulnerable seats are within the Midwest. Wisconsin went for Gore by about 5000 votes. Wisconsin has been trending for the Democrats recently, with a gubernatorial victory for the Democrats in 2002. Russ Feingold will be up for reelection, and will garner a strong crowd of liberals supporting him. A presidential candidate will have to be more appealing than the Greens in order to gain from this support. However, a Democrat can’t appear to liberal here or else the agricultural vote will be in danger.
Candidates most likely to win here: Gephardt, Graham, or Kerry

2. Iowa
Iowans may have kept Democrats out of the House in IO-1 and IO-2, but they sweepingly reelected Tom Harkin and Tom Vilsack in 2002. This state, like Wisconsin barely went for Gore (around 4000 votes). A strong agricultural candidate will be important in this rural state.
Candidates most likely to win here: Gephardt, Graham, or Kerry

1. Minnesota
Unlike the other four states listed here, Democrats did not do well in 2002 in the Gopher State. Republicans won the governor’s mansion, a Senate seat, and a House seat. However, the Paul Wellstone Memorial caused many irate voters in Minnesota, so this state will still be very much in play for the Democrats. Minnesotans like opinionated politicians, who are strong on education, agriculture, and the economy.
Candidates most likely to win here: Dean, Kerry, or Gephardt

However, even if Democrats win all of the states that Gore took, they’d still need ten electoral votes to win the presidency (due to census changes, Gore won states have lost 7 electoral votes). Here are a list of the five most likely pickups for Democrats in 2004.

5. Missouri
Missouri, at the center of the country, constantly remains a virtual draw in each election, considering its surrounded by states both Democratic (Illinois, Iowa, and Arkansas) and Republican (Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma). A candidate willing to win in Missouri has to be really strong on the economy and agricultural issues.
Candidates most likely to win here: Gephardt, Graham, or Kerry

4. Arkansas
Arkansas has two Democratic senators, three Democratic House members, and nearly ousted a Republican governor in 2002. Obviously this state should be in play in 2004. Democrats can’t have a candidate who is too liberal run here. However, like most of the South, Arkansas likes candidates who are strong on the issues and not afraid to challenge their opponent.
Candidates most likely to win here: Graham, Edwards, or Dean

3. Florida
The state that decided it all. Though polling shows Bush with a large lead in this state, once the Democrats start to gain more attention, this could easily change. Floridians are a melting pot of all different ethnicities, but the main way that Democrats could take the Sunshine State would be to campaign against Bush on the failing economy, Social Security, and Medicare.
Candidates most likely to win here: Graham, Edwards, or Gephardt

2. West Virginia
Like Arkansas, this state is Southern but goes strongly for Democrats most of the time (it has a Democratic governor and 80 percent of its congressional delegation is Democratic). A strong labor candidate could go a long way in this state.
Candidates most likely to win here: Gephardt, Edwards, Graham

1. New Hampshire
Though it trends Republican in most aspects, New Hampshire is the only state (aside from Florida) that Bush won with less than 50 percent. New Hampshire hates taxes, but doesn’t like the failing economy.
Candidates most likely to win here: Kerry, Dean, or Lieberman

There are several other states in both columns that could go either way, but these are the five most vulnerable, IMHO. The 2004 presidential election will be very close and George W. Bush could very easily fall into his father’s footsteps.

[George_Bonanza]

1. I wish the electoral college would be abolished

I heard that it was set up so that candidates couldn't ignore the lesser, more frontier states in favour of the more industrial, established ones. Nowadays, every state is up and running. It's very suffocating for a Democrat/Republican to be stuck in a state that's heavily partisan, b/c essentially, their vote doesn't count. No matter how much they rally, the opposing party members are too many. I wonder how bad that must feel. And with the electoral college, millions of votes in a state landslide don't count, while a miniscule 100 can mean the difference between presidency and also-ran.

[zorkpolitics]

2. It all depends

Trying to predict the 2004 election now is rather pointless, because "it all depends". It depends mostly on events over the next 12 months, and to a lesser extend, on trends and third parties.

I think the election will depend on how 4 things are perceived by the voters in the fall of 2004:
1) The economy
2) Iraq/Afghanistan/domestic terrorism
3) Who and how the Democrats select a candidate
4) Presence of a major scandal

Bush is likely to start with 4 advantages:
Solid support from his conservative base (all those judges!) and the Tax cuts
An appeal to independents as a moderate because of the No child left behind and Prescription drug benefit laws.
A post convention bounce in Sept, long after the Democratic July bounce has faded
An early ad campaign running from June to Aug using his $200 million primary war chest to paint the Democrats as negatively as possible

The Democratic nominee will probably start with 3 advantages:
Solid support from his liberal base (all those judges!), the Tax cuts, The Patriot Act, the wars, Bush!
More registered Democrats than Republicans, especially after major Voter registration drives among blacks and Hispanics
The most energized base since Kennedy in 1960

The election will probably depend on how many of the following are true:
1) The economy is improving, even slowly
2) Iraq is stabilized (i.e. less than 1 soldier killed per week) or Osama is killed/captured
3) The Democrats don't unite behind a candidate that appeals to independents (either because he is perceived as "too liberal" or because the convention is in turmoil between a "moderate" and a "liberal".
4) No serious scandal (i.e. one the average voter perceives as a scandal) occurs

The Democratic nominee wins easily if at least 3 of the above are false.

Bush wins easily if at least 3 of the above are true

If only 2 of the above are true it will be close election, and will come down to the 16 closest states from 2000 in which the margin between Gore/Bush was less than 6%.

If it is close, then a major factor may be underlying partisan trends in the states, and local issues. goobergunch did a nice trend analysis in an earlier DU post of the last 4 presidential elections looking at the vote percentage the Democratic candidate had in each state vs his national vote percentage. In only 6 states was there a consistent trend: In FL there was an increasing Democratic margin, but in MN, IA, OR, WI and NM the trend was the opposite. Thus, in a close election, based on trend analysis, Bush might lose FL in 2004 (27 EV), but win MN, IA, OR, WI and NM with 39EV. Of course, local issues may make a difference, like Yucca Mountain might push NV blue.

Finally third parties could again be key in a close election. Most Democrats blame Nader for Gore losing in 2000. But a look at the closest states for each candidate reveals Bush was also hurt by conservative third parties (Libertarian and Reform).

States Gore won by less than a conservative third party margin a total of 29 Electoral Votes:
Gore margin Reform votes Libertarian votes
New Mexico 366 1392 2058
Wisconsin 5708 11446 6640
Iowa 4144 5731 3209
Oregon 6765 7063 7447

States Bush won by less than the Green third party margin also a total of 29 Electoral Votes:
Bush Margin Green votes
Florida 537 97488
New Hampshire 7211 22188


If Perot returns in 2004 he would probably draw off many Bush votes as well.

Finally we have to be careful of the National Polls showing Bush’s popularity declining, even with his national popularity down near 50%, he surprisingly would defeat even Graham by 12% in FL! A lot of the decline in Bush’s national numbers may be due to declines in some of the bigger states Gore won (NY, CA, IL) and not in the battleground states.

[tsipple]

3. I Like Your State Choices

That's a pretty good list of the likely target states. Let me put in a plug here and there for Dean.

With respect to Wisconsin, there was a heavy Nader factor there in 2000, and there's some sense that Dean could cut into that. His gun stance will help, too. (Wisconsin is a big hunting state.) And Feingold's vote against the USA PATRIOT Act should dovetail nicely.

Iowa is extremely anti-war -- Harkin won handily, remember -- and increasingly high-tech. Both those facts mesh well with Dean.

I think there are some additional states you could add to the possible Democratic pickups. Here's what I'd add, with the Bush-Gore percentages in parentheses: Arizona (51-45), Colorado (51-42), Louisiana (53-45) (only if Landrieu VP), Nevada (49-46), Ohio (50-46), Tennessee (51-48), and Virginia (52-45). (Yes, I know Gore was from Tennessee and still couldn't win it, but I think the state is still worth a shot.) My favorite among these states is also the closest, Nevada, and I think Dean (especially) competes well there.

[mndemocrat_29]

4. All states we should try for

I did make a list of the best shot at a pickup to the least likely. I do agree that we can easily win in a lot of those states if we put forward a great candidate and a spectacular campaign. Here's the rest of my pickup list (from most likely to least likely):

6. Arizona
7. Ohio
8. Louisiana
9. Virginia
10. Montana
11. Nevada
12. North Carolina
13. Colorado
14. Georgia
15. Tennessee
16. Kentucky
17. Kansas
18. Indiana
19. South Carolina
20. Alabama
21. Oklahoma
22. South Dakota
23. Mississippi
24. North Dakota
25. Nebraska
26. Wyoming
27. Idaho
28. Alaska
29. Texas
30. Utah

[ButterflyBlood]

9. Nevada is way more winnable than Montana or Virginia

I'd actually rank it as the second most winnable state Bush carried last year, after New Hampshire.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

22. Montana is definately in play

Montana is definately in play. The Republicans have had the state leg for awhile and they've screwed everything up terribly. The R gov has something like a 16% approval rating and may or may not run for reelection. Either way she hurts them. We've got a strong candidate for governor in Schweitzer and I think he'll take it. If things continue on the current trend and we have a strong Prez candidate I think it's our's for the taking.

[burr]

10. I don't think so!!!

Clinton won Arizona with the help of a landslide and Perot on the ballot. Had the race been any closer, or Perot not been on the ballot Arizona would have gone Republican. Louisiana was won with the help of Perot on the ballot and the fact that our candidate came from the neighboring state. Again Montana, Colorado, and Georgia were mostly won thanks to Perot taking GOP leaning voters away from Bush, they are not what I would call winnable states in a close election.

And all the states from South Carolina to Utah, forget it! In the words of Hollings, "Bill Clinton is as popular in South Carolina as AIDS is!"

This doesn't mean we cannot win congressional or state elections in these states. But the only way we will win these states in a Presidential election would be due to another depression, like in 1932.

[ButterflyBlood]

37. Arizona is way more Democratic than it was 7 years ago

it gained 2 new congressional districts, one of which is solidly Democratic, the other which is almost split dead even and won by a Repuke in one of the narrowest races next year. And I bet the Repuke legislature tried to gerrymander the state pretty bad yet still failed. There are more Hispanics and the state is winnable.

[jiacinto]

5. I would add

Nevada

Clark County is growing the fastest and accounts for 75% of the state's votes. Gore did win Clark County, although he lost Nevada because he fared VERY poorly in the rural parts of the state.

The GOP has won the most recent statewide races here and the new 3rd district. But Porter's win there was due to the ethical problems that plagued Dario Herrera.

Also No Democrat has won the White House without Nevada in the last 100 years except for Jimmy Carter.

Louisiana

Bill Clinton's best southern state outside of Arkansas in 1996, where he pulled 52% of the vote, is a potential target. Unlike most other states in the region the Democrats have been able to win statewide elections. The Governorship will probably go to the Democrats this year. Mary Landrieu won re-election against a strong GOP challenge.

This state has a large Catholic population. What turned LA against Gore was guns. This state should be hit heavily with TV ads and GOTV efforts.


Arizona

Bill Clinton was the first Democrat since 1948 to prevail here. The state just elected a Democrat to the Governorship. Over time Maricopa County, where Phoenix is, has become less Republican. With a rising Latino population this state could be in play. The Democrats should take a gamble and hit this state heavily with TV ads early on to see if they can bring this state into the game. Bush et al did that with WV.

Colorado

This state leans Republican and probably is out of reach. However, the Nader/Gore combined vote was 47%. The problem facing Democrats here is the growth of Colorado Springs, which now casts more votes than Denver. Ken Salaazar is the only elected Dem in the state so the state has turned sharply to the right.

The key issue here is guns. If the Democrats could bring the Nader voters back, and then swing the Nader+Gore difference, they could come within striking distance here or maybe even win the state.

The Democrats should try to make Colorado competetive to force Bush to spend omney here. Bush took a gamble WV, so AZ or CO might be the same place where Democrass might force the issue.


Kentucky/Tennessee

Guns hurt the Democrats in these states. Also the Tobacco lawsuits might have played a role in the defeat of Gore in 2000. These states should be hit, especially the economically depressed areas. IF the Democrats can neutralize the gun issue they might be able to win these two areas.

[tedoll78]

7. I can vouch for LA.

My largely-GOP family usually rants about the "gun-grabbers." If Dean's our nominee, this state is definitely in play.

[tedoll78]

6. Wait.. about WV,

Dean should be able to win here. He won't be seen as an environmental extremist and he won't threaten to take away people's guns. Those are what killed Gore in this state. The NRA practically bought this state for Dubya.

[burr]

8. you don't give us much choice...

I think Dean has just as much strength in New Mexico, Wisconsin, and Iowa as do Kerry and Gephardt. Also, where do you get this notion that Graham can win in all these states that Gore didn't. Graham has lost substantial support even in his own state over the past year.

Finally, whether you talk about Dean or Kerry, the running mate will make all the difference. A running mate like Governor Kathleen Sebelius would give the Democrats a boost in Kansas, Missouri, and Iowa. Edwards as a running mate, would boost Democrats' support in Florida and North Carolina. And someone like Mark Warner would allow Democrats to win in both Virginia, which is beginning to trend a little more to the left, and West Virginia.

But the old politics of picking a nominee to deliver an entire region is now a thing of the past. But we can certainly build on the base that Gore won in 2000.

[whirlygigspin]

11. Map & numbers

here's a link to a map (Larry Sabato's)
--it's a projection of Gore states won plus NH (he gives to Dean)

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/pres_college-dean.htm

If this projection can be assumed probable, Dean would only have to
add/carry Ohio +20, to win.

284-254

[tedoll78]

12. Heck,

if Dean can carry Gore states(260) + NH(4) and then add Clark's Arkansas(6), he wins with exactly 270EVs.

We should also lure Bush into spending time and money in OH, FL, LA, TN, WV, AZ, NV, and MO.

[VoteClark]

14. You are the only one making any sense in here Burr.

Some of these people can get carried away big time. I am waiting for someone to say we can carry Utah and Texas. They already listed Arizona. So I imagine it will not be long before they do. Even if John McCain joined the Democrats and became the VP we would be lucky to carry Arizona.


J4Clark

[VermontDem2004]

15. Bush would be lucky to carry Arizona

All of these tech jobs is what made Arizona's economy and their are all in China. Arizona's unemployment rate is well above the national average and we elected our first democratic governor since Rose Mofford. My Aunt lives here and she can't find work and she has 2 Degrees. Mark my words, there is no way in hell Bush is picking up this state. It wouldn't make sense if he did.

[jiacinto]

16. That is being WAY too optomistic

Clinton was the first Democrat to win Arizona in 1996 since 1948. It leans to Bush. It is not a slam dunk for Democrats, but it could be competetive.

[burr]

18. sure...if the Presidential nominee wins by a 8-point margin nationwide.

This usually happens with popular incumbents, not challengers.

In 1976 Carter won by 2 points, and in 1992 Clinton beat shrub by a 5 point margin. The last challenger to beat an incumbent by 10 points was Reagan in 1980, and many say that had Anderson not run..Reagan would have won by only 2-5 points at best.

Competetive is not the word I would choose to describe in Arizona in 2004. Try uphill, or a walk on water.

[Lauren2882]

20. Talking tough

You know, even though I agree that a state like Arizona is a way-long shot, I think it might actually be a good strategy for the Democrats to start talking tough, and pretending like they have a decent chance to win any state in the country. The reason I say this is because I hear Bush/Rove/Fleischer do it, and even though I know it's ridiculous, it pisses me off. Like I think I heard Ari Fleischer say on Letterman that New York was "Bush Country." And of course I'm thinking, "that is the most ludicrous thing ever -- what's next? Massachusetts is 'in play'?" but it still did annoy me that they can be so arrogant, and seem so sure of victory. I think it wouldn't hurt for us to start doing the same... for the Dems to start saying things like "We're planning to campaign hard in South Dakota," or "With the abysmal record of President Bush, we wouldn't even rule out Texas as a possible Democratic pick-up state in '04."

Just a thought...

[mndemocrat_29]

40. I absolutely agree

We need to start talking and acting tough. (For the record, does anyone know why the Dakotas are so Republican? They consistently elect Democrats to Congress, so I'm wondering why they vote for so many Republicans to the presidency.)

[ButterflyBlood]

42. it's not impossible

remember Bush only got 51% in 2000, and the Hispanic population grows every year. We also got a Democratic governor now. It may lean Bush, but it's a far better chance of being won than say, Indiana or Virginia.

[mndemocrat_29]

43. I also think we've got a great chance there

But Virginia remains an interesting challenge for Democrats. One name that I've barely seen connected to the VP challengers is Gov. Mark Warner, who otherwise would seem like a decent candidate. He's one of the highest profile Southern Democrats around, so I'm wondering why his name doesn't pop up more often.

[VermontDem2004]

23. I guess you didn't pay any attention to the problems Arizona has

I live here and I know that people here don't like Bush, you would hardly believe it. It does not lean to Bush, the unemployment rate is higher then the national average, the reason Arizona went to Clinton is because they had jobs and the economy was soaring. All of the major tech jobs have shipped to China and devestated Arizona's economy. If you want to look at past elections go ahead, today is a different story then it was 4 years ago. I know a whole hell lot of people who said They voted for Bush but they wouldn't vote for him again. But some said they wouldn't vote for Bush but they wouldn't vote for a Democrat either. Arizona is slam dunk imho and you will see in the 2004 elections. I am not optomistic, I am being realistic.

[ButterflyBlood]

38. Arizona is just as winnable as Louisiana

They had almost identical percentages in 2000, and Bush only got 51% there. It may be Bush leaning, but definately not out of play.

[VermontDem2004]

13. Add Arizona to the list

It is going to (D) in '04, mark my words.

[jiacinto]

17. You are being way too optomistic

The state has only voted Dem once since 1948.

[carpetbagger]

21. Demographic shifts are going to drive AZ to the Democrats.

It might not be 2004, but it'll be soon. I'd see AZ going into the generic Democrat column long before some other states that allegedly are trending towards that, such as FL or CO.

[VoteClark]

29. Clark can get FL or CO but not both

In Colorado the southern part of the State is heavily Hispanic. The Northern part is heavily military. So a Clark/Richardson Ticket would swing it.

He could get Florida, West Virginia and VIrginia because the Southern part of Virginia is heavily African American and the Northern is heavily Military, so a Clark/Warner ticket would carry these two states. Florida is Republican and Military in the north, and very Democratic in the south. A duo southern boys ticket would weaken the Republican vote in the North, giving the Democrats the vote in the state by a tiny margin. But don't ever count on Florida going Democratic, the Republicans will toss the popular vote and select their own electors if it doesn't go their way.


:kick:
J4Clark

[jiacinto]

44. Well I do think

that by the 2010s AZ should be more hospitable to the Democrats. But it is still a Republican state on balance.

[mndemocrat_29]

45. Arizona

I do think that we can start looking at Arizona. The redistricting was atrocious, which is why the Democrats only have two seats. However, we could pickup Rick Renzi's seat if we run Steve Udall (AZ-1) and Jim Kolbe's seat once he retires. Also, Rep. Ed Pastor could be a challenger to Sen. Jon Kyl in 2006. A strong challenger to Bush, along with Gov. Janet Napolitano's support, could help bring AZ Democratic in 2004. Otherwise, if we can add considerably to the Congressional Delegation, we could take this in 2008.

[VoteClark]

25. Don't Forget, Dean can get Utah, Texas and Wyoming too

This should tell you how deranged some Dean supporters can get.


:kick:
J4Clark

[True_Blue]

27. It is highly unlikley Dean will pick up Utah, Texas, and Wyoming

But Utah is a mormon state which they vote based on mormon values which supports the republican view on this country. Texas is Bush's home state, Wyoming is Cheney's home state and is very republican. They also enjoy hunting since their ain't shit to do in Wyoming which might help Dean pick up some votes, put his position on Civil Unions will cost him the State. Now, I think Kerry has the best chance of winning Arizona because he was once a military veteran. Arizona is not quite as republican as everyone thinks, they don't for someone just because there is an (R) next to his name, they look at the issues and they look for honesty and integrety which is why McCain is so popular because he appears that way. Which is also why Goldwater was so popular too because of his "straight-talk". Also your candidate Clark would do extremely well in Arizona and would pick up the state without a doubt. It would be difficult for Dean to win the state, but if stresses the economy and jobs which is really devasting the East Valley and trys to show himself as a moderate instead of some kind of "flaming liberal" he will have no problem picking up the state.

[VoteClark]

32. I was being Sarcastic Camcb

I know well that Dean can't pick up any Southern States or Western States besides California, Hawaii, and Washington. He might get Oregon if Nader stays out. He can't win 270 electoral, no way.


:kick:
J4Clark

[True_Blue]

34. What do you base that opinion on?

The fact he is from the Northeast?

[tedoll78]

35. No..

it's the fact that his name isn't "Clark."

[ButterflyBlood]

39. Why would he have trouble with Oregon?

Since guns are the main reason it was so close for Gore.

[SyracuseDemocrat]

19. I think that we have a good shot

at picking up Missouri and Arkansas, and possibly Florida. New Hampshire and WV are also possibilities. Bush barely won New Hampshire.

[tedoll78]

24. If it's a Dean-Clark ticket..

Gore's + NH + AR = 270EVs

Soros will fund GOTV in the close states from the states I mentioned, so we can spend money on: AZ/FL/LA/TN/WV/MO. Force Bush to defend his own turf, rather than the other way around. That'd be a refreshing change.

[VoteClark]

26. Dean and Clark mix like oil and water

Dean is brash and shoots off his mouth. Clark is calm, collective and very thoughful in his thinking and speaking. I doubt Clark would be Dean's VP. Very much doubt it unless the world economy crashes and Dean can walk into office without a fight.


:kick:
J4Clark

[tedoll78]

28. How much time have you actually spent..

.. watching Dean speak? Even seen him work a crowd or speak as part of a non-candidate panel? He can actually carry-on a thoughtful, logical conversation. Your assessment of his style is weak, to say the least.

[True_Blue]

30. Yes

I always watched him after he spoke and he would spend time talking to the audience and he wasn't "brash and shooting off at the mouth"

[VoteClark]

31. Many Many hours.

I also know Clark. He is not going to be Dean's VP. Will not happen. Clark would not like Dean. Their personialites don't mix well.


:kick:
J4Clark

[tedoll78]

33. Oh.. you know him?

Well.. now I take your very non-biased word for it.

lol..

[ErasureAcer]

36. If the Dems take these two states, they win.

Ohio and Pennsylvania.

They're loaded with electoral votes and if they take those, you can expect the rest of the 2000 states(Penn was one of them) to fall in line.

So how do we get Ohio? Support Dennis Kucinich. He won't lose his own state, unlike Al Gore.

19 electoral votes in Ohio, the most(besides Braun and Sharpton, which of whose states are locked to go democratic) of any dem candidate.

If you guys want Ohio and a good platform and a clear, distinct alternative to Bush...support Kucinich.

If we get Ohio we won't lose.

[SyracuseDemocrat]

41. NH is ours

n/t