Reply #49: My main complaint with the article

[last_texas_dem]

would be that the author seems to assume that the Kerry states would be a given. Maybe I'm reading that part wrong, but that is the impression that I get.

But it's important to consider how many of Kerry's states were narrow wins; they should not be assumed to make up any sort of Democratic base. New Hampshire? Well, they seem to be trending blue with the switch of both of their house seats from R to D and, I believe, the switch of controlling party in their state legislature. But Gore lost NH in '00, Kerry only narrowly won in '04 (and that could have had something to do with being from a state that bordered NH, although I've heard New Hampshire-ites aren't necessarily that big on their neighbors to the south), and NH is traditionally a Republican state.

And then there are Wisconsin and Minnesota. Both states went for Gore and Kerry, but both by margins too close for comfort- especially Wisconsin. Minnesota should seem like one of the safest states, being the one that has the longest history of voting for the Democrat in Presidential elections, but Nader's strength in 2000 indicates that a third-party challenge from the left might cause both of these to be way too close for comfort once again- and a Clinton candidacy for whatever reason, seems more likely to generate a strong third-party challenge than a run by any of the other Democratic candidates would.

Even if we do assume that all of Kerry's states will decide to go for Clinton, getting those extra twenty electoral votes may be tougher than the article makes it sound. Ohio may be in bad shape economically after years of Republican rule and the Democrats made some major pick-ups in the way of the governorship and a Senate seat in '06. But a number of competitive House seats that looked like we had a good shot at as pick-ups still ended up staying with the Repugs, in a climate that wasn't good for them at all. There is not strong proof that Ohio will not decide to vote against their economic self-interest once again. I mean, and I'm not taking into account the numerous shady things that went on with the vote in '04, they still stuck with Shrub in '04 when their state wasn't exactly in great shape. Can Clinton be expected to pull off something neither Al Gore nor John Kerry could do?

Florida, at least in comparing '00 to '04 seems to actually be moving in the wrong direction, especially considering that they voted for Bill Clinton in '96. Perhaps Hillary Clinton would be more popular here than Gore or Kerry were, but would she be popular enough to overcome any corruption in the voting system, and the large Republican presence in the state? Obviously, this same question could be asked of any of our candidates. I just don't trust that Florida is worth putting any money on in terms of it going for our side. If it went "D" it would definitely be a very pleasant surprise, but I don't think it's wise to make it any part of a group of necessary states for our victory.

Anyway, that's just my take on things; maybe I'm being too pessimistic, but perhaps I'm just still feeling the burn from 2000 and 2004.