Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Electoral strategy: Dems. already lost 7 electoral votes!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Politics/Campaigns Donate to DU
 
uconnyc Donating Member (185 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 08:57 PM
Original message
Electoral strategy: Dems. already lost 7 electoral votes!
If you look at the new Electoral college after the 2000 census the states that Gore won lost 7 electoral votes, while the states Bush won gained 7 votes.

We've got our work cut out for us!

What states do you think the Democrat nominee will have to really screw-up badly to lose?

I think: DC, Hawaii, New York, California and Vermont are the only ones.

For Bush: Texas, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Utah, ND, SD, Nebraska, Kansas, Indiana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, Virginia, Alaska are pretty much locks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
xray s Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 08:59 PM
Response to Original message
1. Illinois is a 'D' lock
Bet the farm on that one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Davis_X_Machina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 09:00 PM
Response to Original message
2. I think: DC, HI, NY, CA and VT are the only ones....
Add Maine, Mass, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, for starters.

Iowa, Michigan, too. Manufacturing unemployment has already cost the GOP those states...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uconnyc Donating Member (185 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #2
12. so you're saying Bush can't win those states unless....
the Democratic candidate really screws up?

I think you give Bush and his band of merry men too little credit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coralrf Donating Member (656 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #12
30. Band implies more than one...
and Bush has Rove. Bush has nothing to run on but his past. Not so good. In 2000 he ran on promises and it took the SCOTUS to slide him an ace. This time it will be his promises but what promises he broke.

Bush has been in self destruct mode since Jan 21, 2001.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 09:01 PM
Response to Original message
3. Don't be suprised if some of those 'red' states go blue...
while you're probably right, I wouldn't be suprised if Alaska, Utah and perhaps a couple others went blue this time around... but I could just be overly optimistic. ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalmuse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. If Utah goes blue...
I will run nekidd through the streets, screaming for joy. I think Nevada will go blue this time, but Utah? Bush would have to be exposed of all his crimes in the major headlines, including allowing 9-11 to happen, and even then, the stepford Mormons may not turn. There are a lot of liberals in SLC, but the rest of the state drowns us out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #11
20. Bookmarking!
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coralrf Donating Member (656 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #11
27. Nevada...
Nuke waste. Done deal!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewYorkerfromMass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #3
23. Yep! We're winning NH, AZ, and OH. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 09:01 PM
Response to Original message
4. Nitpick... the DEMOCRATIC nominee
Please don't reinforce the use of "Democrat" when the proper term is "Democratic". The right wing and their media cohorts are doing their best, let's not help them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coralrf Donating Member (656 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #4
28. Amen Trotsky.....
It is a DEMOCRATIC candidate and it is the DEMOCRATIC party. Delay is the chief proponent of the Democrat party misnomer. Remember that the not so wise pukes ridiculed with great success the word Democrat but forgot the word DEMOCRATIC. In moron America, YES it makes a difference. The pugs will never use DEMOCRATIC as it still carries its original definition.

DEMOCRATIC:
1 : of, relating to, or favoring democracy.
2 often capitalized : of or relating to one of the two major political parties in the U.S. evolving in the early 19th century from the anti-federalists and the Democratic-Republican party and associated in modern times with policies of broad social reform and internationalism
3 : relating to, appealing to, or available to the broad masses of the people <democratic art>
4 : favoring social equality : not snobbish
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sham Donating Member (377 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 09:02 PM
Response to Original message
5. Pardon my ignorance on this
I'm really not familiar with Alaskan politics, but I had always assumed it was a blue state, for environmental reasons. I guess that was a stupid assumption?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xray s Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. It's split
Developers/miners/oil vs environmentalists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guirigui Donating Member (63 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #5
13. No, not stupid at all . . .
Unfortunately for Alaska, due to its weather, population and remote location, a much greater percentage of its population tends to depend on jobs and industry that make use of (or, IOW, exploit) its natural resources. A large portion of that states population therefore tends to be more sympathetic to mining, timber and oil industry concerns.

Compare that to, say, Oregon or Washington, states that have a more diversified economy, especially around the major metropolitan areas. Such diversity has resulted in a smaller portion of its population dependent on, and therefore sympathetic to, such industries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coralrf Donating Member (656 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #5
29. No not at all..
It is a Blue state on that basis and I think that, ANWR, a huge issue there. AK may be conservative but my impression of the Alaskan is one of a determined and solid person.

Totally off topic but did you know that the 2 largest populations of Bald Eagles, the symbol of the USA are in Alaska and my state Florida? Not Texas. I predict the Eagle has landed and its test flight with the right is over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ButterflyBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-24-03 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #5
33. not even close
most of the economy there is bent on raping the environment (ANWR for example) so it's about as solidly Republican as you can get. Although we have a good shot at picking up a Senate seat there next year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ewagner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 09:04 PM
Response to Original message
6. Expect Wisconsin to go Dem
not necessarily a lock but pretty damned close!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Edmundo Donating Member (30 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 09:06 PM
Response to Original message
8. We're working on Michigan...
Decision 2004

Half of Michigan voters don't want Bush re-elected


By George Weeks / The Detroit News

More Michigan voters want a new face in the White House than want President Bush re-elected, a new voter survey shows.

A Detroit News/Local4/ Mitchell Poll of 600 likely voters found that 49 percent want someone other than Bush elected next year, compared to 44 percent who favor a second term.

Link:
http://www.detnews.com/2003/politics/0309/22/a01-276741...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LightTheMatch Donating Member (572 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 09:09 PM
Response to Original message
9. New Mexico
NM will probably be close to a lock for us this time. The Democratic Party in NM is coming back strong.

Arizona will be a possibility, but Nevada is more likely.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HawkerHurricane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 09:13 PM
Response to Original message
10. Don't worry
I expect those states which gained electoral votes also gained Democrats. The population didn't go up just because Replutocans were having babies, it went up because people were moving.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rads Donating Member (54 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 09:42 PM
Response to Original message
14. A few more blues
Maryland and New Jersey are absolute locks, and I'd say Delaware is close to being one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UnapologeticLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Gore won NJ by 14 points, but it is not an absolute given
Supposedly it looked competitive 2 weeks before the election last time. I am not sure why that is but I would not take it for granted...it started voting Democratic for president in 1992 but it went GOP in the previous 6 presidential elections.

September to Remember
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ButterflyBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #16
25. so did California
NJ's a bigger lock than California, which went to Gore by "only" 12 points, not bad at all, but less than other states. It's far from the most liberal or most Democratic state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UnapologeticLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 11:43 PM
Response to Original message
15. Add Rhode Island and Massachusetts to the list of completely safe states
Gore won both of those states by almost 30 points. And Maryland, too, for that matter, and maybe Connecticut. Certainly if NY is on that list than these states should be on it.

Help make this a September to Remember
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jiacinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 11:46 PM
Response to Original message
17. disagree on KY
That state can be one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 12:06 AM
Response to Original message
18. Oregon D
I don't see this state going Republican. It may depend on the health plan presented. If they see it as a duplicate of the Oregon Health Plan, people here will cringe. But it depends on whether they believe it's the same thing and whether they blame OHP problems on Bush underfunding or state mismanagement. And whether they think the plan presented will help fix it. Generally, I think people are pretty well horrified by Bush. I would suspect you could add Washington to your D list as well. You said screw up badly to lose.

On Rep, depending on the Democratic VP, I only see TX, WY, ID, KS, OK, AL, MS, and AK as pretty much locks. The rest could easily be in play with Edwards as VP and a shitty economy. Edwards can talk to rural people anywhere.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ButterflyBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-24-03 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #18
31. The Dakotas and Nebraska
it doesn't matter who the VP is, those are lost. And why the hell is Utah not on there? There is NO ONE who can bring the Mormons in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goobergunch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-24-03 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. Matheson?
;-) :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
diamondsoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 11:56 AM
Response to Original message
19. I wouldn't bet on Indiana being a Bush lock
either. Manufacturing and other job losses around here have people mightily pissed. Add to that we had a Dem Governor who was adored even by most of the local Repubs, and we may just swing this time out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 12:42 PM
Response to Original message
21. NO WAY is Montana a lock for Bush
Edited on Tue Sep-23-03 12:43 PM by Feanorcurufinwe
the political climate here is looking worse and worse for the Republicans. They've been in total control here for years and their mismanagement is starting to come home to roost. The Republican governor is the most unpopular in history (she is not running for reelection) and we've got a great Gov. candidate in Schwietzer. The Bush economy has been a disaster here - we were already last in wages before the Bush recession and things have only gotten worse. Even the wildfire rhetoric is starting to wear thin as the fires this summer have proven it all to be lies.

And the population is changing as well. We have been experiencing an influx of people moving here from out of state for years. This is not your father's Montana.... Western Montana has traditionally been more Democratic and Eastern Montana Republican... and all the population growth is in the west.

And don't forget Clinton carried Montana in '92...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. And Mike Mansfield
And Ted Schwinden and Metcalf and other strong Montana Democrats. If Montana rejects this new wave of Republican politics, it'll be a great signal that the tide is really turning.

And Montana should never forget Jeanette Rankin, even though she was a Republican. At 88, she was protesting the Vietnam War. What a heroic figure for peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ButterflyBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 05:20 PM
Response to Original message
24. You missed arguably the two biggest locks
Edited on Tue Sep-23-03 05:23 PM by ButterflyBlood
Rhode Island and Massachussetts. Gore beat Bush in RI than any other state in the country. Those as well as Connecticut, New Jersey and Maryland are bigger locks than California.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coralrf Donating Member (656 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-23-03 09:37 PM
Response to Original message
26. Florida....
will go Dem. Go ahead and flame on but I am sitting in it and I am in Duval county...GOP thru and thru. Bush is toast in Florida as his brother would have been if the Democratic party put up half an effort. In 2002 there was no reason for a Dems to go to the polls and a huge amount of them did not. Fuck them. 2004 will bring them out.

This is a Southern State and a blue collar state. In other words there are lots of boys and girls in Iraq that are not having a problem with the heat( it was 92 here today). You can fool a guy into buying a Yugo but once he drives it he will know what you did.

Bush will not get Florida in 2004 and it is unlikely that the GOP will have much going on in Tallahassee after that election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ButterflyBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-24-03 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #26
32. The Democrat may get the most votes in Florida
but whether Jeb lets all the votes be counted remains to be seen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brush_Hill Donating Member (8 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-24-03 03:07 PM
Response to Original message
35. Twisted Election in 2004
I am a pessimist and a sometime conspiracy addict. That being said, I have my own theory as to the 2004 General Election. And it involves Senator Hillary Clinton.
My thinking is the the Repukes will purposely lose this election and let a Democrat WIN. Why? Well, if Bush wins, then he will have to be RESPONSIBLE and finish the mission in Iraq and rebuild the American economy. This will be impossible. This being impossible, the Repukes decide to engineer a Democratic victory and let the Iraq mess become his/her problem. The added bonus is that Hillary will not take on a sitting Democratic president in 2008. Conversely, my thinking is that if * wins in 2004 (God help us all), then the 2008 election will be Hillary's and we all know that keeping her out of the White House is their top mission in life. (Ok, well in the top 5 missions)
I see no way for * to get out of the mess that he and his handlers have created. Some have suggested that there will be an "orchestrated terrorist attack." Talk about wagging the dog.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zekeson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-24-03 04:47 PM
Response to Original message
36. Specualtion that Minnesota could go Red
and that is a sorry state of affairs. The DFL hasn't the message out here as well as they could'v ein the recent past - the loss of Wellstone was a huge vacuumn and the Repugglies made inroads with the inbred twins, Pawlenty (gov) and Coleman (the sen woefully inadequate in Paul Welstone's job). They are co-chairing Bush's* MN campaign. I think the rumours of the DFL's demise is greatly exaggerated and we'll see Blue in MN in 2004.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ButterflyBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-24-03 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. I agree
especially since Pawlenty isn't too popular and Coleman hasn't won anyone over as all he's done is kiss Bush's ass. Bush won't gain any points being seen with those two. Also keep in mind if you add in the Nader vote Bush lost by 7 points in 2000.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RevelerRevenant Donating Member (17 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-03 10:04 PM
Response to Original message
38. South Should Know Better
It seems apparent to me that the Southern states are biting the hand
that feeds them. Democratic administrations have always provided
the people of the South with money to live on, Food Stamps, cheap
electricity, huge grants of federal tax money to support them,
which comes from the large rich states such as NY, CA, PA, etc.
Why they continue to vote for Republicans who keep cutting and cutting
the programs that help them is beyond me.
It took the South about 120 years to recoup a decent standard of
living after the Civil War, because such great Democrats such as FDR
saw fit to extend a helping hand. Then LBJ continued the tradition and
LBJ is second only to FDR for the good he did for the South.
It is like country music singers. They wail and moan about patriotism,
war, country, etc. but not one of them had the guts to enlist and
fight for their country. They are armchair warriors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug 29th 2014, 11:52 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Politics/Campaigns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC