DemDogs
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-28-03 04:40 PM
Original message |
Fantastic election map on Edwards site |
|
It's an interactive map where you can calculate how to win in 2004. And in the "Trends" overlay of the map you can find out a lot of handy facts about each state. This is really terrific. Check it out. < http://www.johnedwards2004.com/map/>
|
CMT
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-28-03 04:45 PM
Response to Original message |
|
since it was Edward's site I gave him North Carolina and West Virginia and of course he beats that Schrub.
|
dsc
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-28-03 04:52 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Would you please tell him to change |
|
Edited on Tue Oct-28-03 04:55 PM by dsc
Democrat to Democratic? That literally sets my teeth on edge. It is positively scary how sucessful the right has been in getting Democrat accepted as an adjective. The map is sweet though but I don't like the numbers in the map as it appears when you load his site. We need to change that.
|
DemDogs
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-28-03 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
|
But I think that is it means "voted for the Democrat" and "voted for the Republican" but if it bothers you still, you should email them or post something about it on their blog. < http://blog.johnedwards2004.com/>
|
dsc
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-28-03 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
I know it sounds picky but I would have brought this up about Dean. I just don't like the fact that that Republican contructions took off like it did.
|
leyton
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-28-03 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
9. A much bigger mistake... |
|
I think there is another bigger mistake here. Democrats, if I remember, took 267 electoral votes in 2000, not 260. This map uses the current electoral apportionment and doesn't take into account the recent census & reapportionment.
|
DemDogs
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-28-03 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
14. It does use 2004 reapportionment |
|
You can see NC has 15 which is up one. On the trends map it tells which states are up or down. (Gore would not have won with just adding NH under new apportionment.)
|
AP
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-29-03 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
26. I think Democrats are appropriating "Democrat" to take the negative |
|
implications away.
I've seen a couple Dems do this recently.
|
FlashHarry
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-28-03 04:57 PM
Response to Original message |
3. Cool. All we need is Missouri! |
Lefty48197
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-28-03 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
19. Missouri will win it all for us |
|
Gephardt on the ticket should pull it off.
|
West Coast Democrat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-28-03 05:02 PM
Response to Original message |
|
It looks very possible to win in 2004, even if we lose Florida. I think we will definitely win NH next year, and we'll pick up a few other small states such as NC (if Edwards is on the ticket), WV perhaps NV and even LA.
|
Sean Reynolds
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-28-03 05:03 PM
Response to Original message |
7. Again, WE do NOT need the South to win! |
|
Edited on Tue Oct-28-03 05:03 PM by Sean Reynolds
Just win Democratic states and we'll be JUST fine! We take Arizona and the Dems are in control!
|
Padraig18
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-28-03 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
|
... wouldn't it be nice to rip a few of them away from the "R" column for the future? I mean, that's been the Repukes whole strategy for 3 decades; it might leave them WITHOUT a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of, if we broke their stranglehold on the South. :hi:
|
Sean Reynolds
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-28-03 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
11. No doubt. BUT we can win without the south. |
|
IMO I think the Dem will win Florida and I believe Dean has a good shot at doing well in the south.
In 2004 the Repubs will be crying the elector college isn't fair.
|
DemDogs
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-28-03 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
15. Close midwestern states |
|
Think about the narrow margins in Iowa, Wisconsin, New Mexico and think again. GWB has lived in these states he narrowly lost. If you want to bet on no margin for error and if you don't care about ever winning back the House and the Senate, then you can nominate a candidate who will lose the whole South. But no Democratic candidate has EVER won without Southern states, and I am not willing to take a chance that 2004 will be the first time ever. Let's win in the South!
|
Sean Reynolds
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-28-03 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #15 |
16. Which candidate(s) do you think CAN win the south? |
Padraig18
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-28-03 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #16 |
17. As I've said before... |
|
I think any of our top-tier candidates could win parts of the South. The South is not thoroughly repuke from top to bottom--- it's split. Southerners care about issues like health care, decent schools, the economy, etc., just like everyone else. What we have to do is quit shoving some of our PC/third-rail issues in their faces, like additional gun-control, etc.
|
dolstein
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-28-03 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #17 |
20. Clark, yes. Edwards, yes. Who else did you have in mind? |
|
Gephardt could conceivably carry Missouri. Lieberman could conceivably carry Florida. I don't see what Southern state Dean could carry, though. I think his A rating from the NRA will carry a lot less weight with Southern voters that his supporters think. Same thing with Kerry -- his war record isn't going to help him much. Southern roots count for a lot more than a pro-gun stance or a distinguished war record. Bill Clinton, a certified draft dodger and no friend of the NRA, carried states in the South against George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole, certified war heroes.
|
VermontDem2004
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-29-03 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
30. Oh southern roots really helped out Gore in the south |
dsc
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-29-03 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
32. He also won by nearly 6% nationally |
|
which made a pretty big difference.
Here is a comparison of Bush v Dukakis 88, Bush v Clinton 92, and Bush v Gore 00 in the only five southern states Clinton won.
Bush v Dukakis nationally 53.4 to 45.6 (-7.8) St B D dif difference from national margin Ark 56 42 -14 -6.2 GA 60 40 -20 -12.2 LA 54 44 -10 -2.2 TN 58 42 -16 -8.2 FL 61 39 -22 -14.2
Bush v Clinton nationally 43.0 to 37.4 (5.6) St B C dif difference from national Ark 35.5 53.4 16.7 11.1 GA 42.9 43.5 0.6 -5.0 LA 41.0 45.8 4.8 -0.8 TN 42.4 47.1 4.7 -0.9 FL 40.9 39.0 -1.9 -7.5
Bush v Gore nationally 47.9 to 48.4 (0.5) St B G dif difference from national Ark 51.3 45.9 -5.4 -5.9 GA 55.0 43.2 -11.8 -12.3 LA 52.8 44.9 -7.9 -8.4 TN 51.2 47.3 -3.9 -4.4 FL 48.85 48.84 -0.01 -0.51
This is a rather astonishingly stark set of stats. Clinton, who did win some southern states, did significantly worse in them then he did nationally with three exceptions. His home state, his running mate's home state, and Lousiana. Even more starkly Dukakis actually did better in a relative sense in Lousiana than Gore did. He is within a very small distance of Gore in both Georgia and Arkansas as well. I think the lesson of the 1990's in regards to the South is that it is good to win by 6 points not that we need a Southerner. It is hard looking at these numbers to see how Gore's being a Southerner helped at all. I don't see any of our candidates winning by 6% and if Clinton's margin had been say 2% he would have lost Georgia had it been 1% he would have barely won LA and TN. Those margins are way more realistic than the 6% that Clinton won by.
|
DemDogs
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-28-03 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #17 |
21. You're not FROM the South then (n/t) |
peaceandjustice
(238 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-29-03 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #16 |
24. nominate Andrew Young for VP and increase African American turnout |
|
and we could pick up Georgia, Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina with any of the tp-tier candidates.
|
jiacinto
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-28-03 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
|
Yes it's "technically" possible but that would mean winning holding all the Gore states, plus winning either NH, WV, or NV.
Everything else would have to fall into place exactly for it to happen!
|
Sean Reynolds
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-28-03 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
13. Again, I think we'll take Florida. |
|
We'll have a good shot at New Hampshire as well as Arizona and Colorado.
|
DemDogs
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-28-03 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
18. Winning Gore states +NH not enough |
9119495
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-29-03 08:06 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
23. Finally somebody agrees with me. |
|
Its the electoral votes that count. I seem to remember this was an issue in a recent election somewhere.
|
Padraig18
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-28-03 05:05 PM
Response to Original message |
|
I played with it, and if we could change either AZ or MO to blue this time, we'd win. :)
|
dusty64
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-28-03 11:48 PM
Response to Original message |
|
NH and WV would go to the Democrat and its a freakin tie 269 to 269. I do think more states than that will go blue, but wonder if the extreme court would get to choose again in that scenario. I like the fact Florida is a ? for 2000, even though I am SURE that Gore won. Wonder why its red for 2004.
|
Rooktoven
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-29-03 09:46 AM
Response to Original message |
Ediacara
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-29-03 10:56 AM
Response to Original message |
|
The fact that the 2000 map has a big question mark on top of Florida has made me warm up ever-so-slightly to Edwards LOL
|
ProfessorPlum
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-29-03 02:06 PM
Response to Original message |
28. Someone should draw a map with the area of each state |
|
proportional to its relative number of electoral votes. THEN paint them red or blue and put that on a T-shirt.
|
NewYorkerfromMass
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-29-03 03:14 PM
Response to Original message |
29. wow. I just came up with a very possible electoral tie! |
|
every Gore state plus NH and WV = 269/269 could happen, could very well happen.
BTW Ha ha! I love Florida 2000 = "?"
|
DemDogs
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-29-03 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #29 |
31. That's the tough part |
|
With redistricting we have to win more states AND the Rs will challenge in states Gore won by narrow margins. We all know Florida will be a battleground, but so will Iowa and Wisconsin and New Mexico. I'll say it again: need some Southern states. We can't keep giving them all away. We NEVER win without them.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu May 02nd 2024, 12:36 PM
Response to Original message |