Red State most likely to turn blue

[Doctor_J]

Poll question: Red State most likely to turn blue

Not just for 06, but in attitude - People actually becoming disgusted with the neocons and seeing the light

[coolhandlulu]

1. OHIO

If Issues 2,3,4, and 5 pass...

[Extend a Hand]

4. I'm seconding Ohio

[doc03]

21. Me too! If we don't take Ohio we may as well give up.

[AntiCoup2K4]

48. Do those "issues" have something to do with electro-fraud voting?

[POAS]

52. Yep Ohio gets my vote.

[Tiggeroshii]

60. YES

=)

[leyton]

70. Ohio.

The GOP there is falling apart (as I understand it) and they are, among red states, one of the most displeased states with Bush.

[Laelth]

78. Ohio, certainly.

*'s popularity there is in the pits. Of course, there's a good argument that Ohio was blue in 2004. It was stolen red. So, it's not entirely accurate to say it will "turn" blue, given that it was blue already, but that's just a matter of semantics.

-Laelth

[boobooday]

81. Most definitely Ohio

Where the Republican Party corruption stands naked and exposed for all to see, thanks for the newspapers, like the Toledo Blade, who still do journalism.

[pbartch]

88. I voted for Florida but I think OHIO.

Don't people hate the Secretary of State and the Governor's guts???

If I lived in Ohio....I know I would.

[bufffbison]

2. louisiana

[KyndCulture]

3. yep! LA for sure.... nt

[OKthatsIT]

89. When all the Dems are displaced in LA?

[DaveinMD]

23. not likely

I don't mean to sound crass, but Katrina killed any hopes of this. Most of those displaced are African American voters. A good number of these voters won't return. This will make it very difficult to win Louisiana.

[...of J.Temperance]

35. President Clinton won Louisiana twice

Louisiana was his best state outside of Arkansas and in 1996 he beat Dole in Louisiana by double digits.

The population, the black population of NOLA pre-Katrina was 67%, the black population of NOLA now stands at 40%...and not ALL the white NOLA voters are Republican.

Also tens of thousands of the evacuated NOLA black voters are still in Louisiana, in other Parishes and they'll still be able to vote...if Al Ater the SoS gets his act together before 2007 and 2008.

President Clinton twice won Louisiana with much more voters than the Orleans Parish voters. Louisiana has a strong Populist streak, it always has and it always will...with the right candidate.

Vice-President Gore wasn't the right candidate and neither was Senator Kerry, that's just the way it was.

Senator Edwards, General Clark, Governor Warner, these would be the right kind of candidates to appeal to the Populist voters.

[DaveinMD]

39. I'm familiar with all this

I'm not optimistic I'm sorry to say. The Dem senate candidate didn't even force a runoff in the last Senate Election. Typically, a candidate needs to win 90 percent of the black vote statewide and 40 percent of the white vote. If the black population decreases, the math becomes harder.

[...of J.Temperance]

41. Chris John, the Democratic Senate candidate FAILED BECAUSE

The State Treasurer John Kennedy and a State Legislator Arthur Morrell SPLIT our vote. Combined John, Kennedy and Morrell got 47% of the vote. Had Kennedy and Morrell have pulled out PRIOR to the November election, thus the election being SOLELY between Chris John and David Vitter...plus a few minor candidates that stayed in. Then Chris John would have beaten David Vitter, Vitter only got 51% remember.

We had TOO many cooks in the kitchen, they should have left the kitchen and then Chris John would have cooked David Vitter well and good.

[Hippo_Tron]

67. No because if you give all of the votes to John, Vitter still got 51%

That's how the open election system works, the Dem vote was split but it didn't matter, the Republican still got 51%. The reason Vitter won was because he spent all of his resources pulling for a November 2nd victory with heavy Bush turnout to put him over the top and John assumed that he wouldn't get it and saved his resources for the runoff.

[Hippo_Tron]

68. The "populist voters" you speak of put Clinton over the top...

It still doesn't mean that he didn't need overwhelming support from the African American community to win. And while you are correct that not all white NOLA voters are Republican, most of them are. There's a reason that Louisiana hasn't quite gone the way of Mississippi and Alabama and that is because we had a large enough African American population from a city like New Orleans.

[The Flaming Red Head]

87. I was going to say Louisiana, too

[1932]

5. Virginia?

[...of J.Temperance]

37. Virginia is a good possibility

Governor Warner has been very popular. We'll have to see how Lt. Governor Tim Kaine performs against the nutjob Jerry Kilgore.

Also Virginia is the only Southern state to have ever elected a black Governor, Douglas Wilder. Wilder was GREAT, we should get him involved more in the Democratic Party again, he still has a lot to offer.

[Pirate Smile]

6. Iowa - although I don't really consider Iowa red - Blue in 2000, Red 2004.

It is always close.

[Doctor_J]

33. That's why I didn't list it

Same with OH. See post #31 below. I was thinking of states that seem, if not right-wing, then at least "solidly GOP", at least from an outsiders view. IA or OH or LA would swing the election, but wouldn't be a shock to anyone. I'm looking for something that was pretty much written off in 2002.

[Zynx]

7. I'm not going to count marginal reds so I say Virginia.

[napi21]

8. Va. for sure IF Warner is the Dem candidate.

I keep hearing more and more good things about him. He's on cspan on Sun night I think on Q&A.

[s-cubed]

16. Warner can't run again, but he is supporting Kaine. n/t

[napi21]

19. I meant the Presidential candidate in 08.

I've heard several interviewers ask him if he's planning on running for Pres, and he always give the "I've thought about it, or I don't know yet."

[Doctor_J]

38. He's that popular in VA?

:shrug:

[napi21]

43. From everything I've read, yes he is. n/t

[BlackVelvet04]

57. Governing Magazine

ranked VA as the best run state in the nation.

[leyton]

71. He is Virginia's most popular politician.

I think his approval ratings are 73%, higher than either Senator's.

[AX10]

9. A few of them should change.

Ohio, Florida, Virginia, New Mexico, Iowa.

[ptolle]

55. western strategy

I'm surprised not to see either Montana- good solid Democratic governor there or Colorado which is a highly educated, expensive, diverse, urbanized, high-tech, non-religious state( except of course for the dobson enclave around Colorado Springs,which a lot of the rest of the state sees as a nuthouse) that receives back only about 78 cents in federal spending for every dollar its residents pay in federal taxes.To be sure they've presently got a shrub-lite texas carpetbagger for governor but he's term limited gone after this term and there are several good solid democratic candidates for his office. They may have gone for the chimperor this last round, but while they were doing that they were also returning the state legislature to a democratic majority for the first time in a long while. Plus recently they delivered a pretty stinging slap to Grover Norquist, the Club for Growth boys and other anti-tax zealots by passing fairly convincingly a referendum that cut the state loose from the worst of the ratchet effect imposed by a so-called Taxpayers Bill Of Rights.Also I'm not too sure but what they're not starting to get a little tired of Tancredo and Musgrave.

[rpannier]

10. I'd need you to define Red State a little further.

Colorado voted scrub. But they threw the pukies out of power in both branches of the state legislature. Montana voted scrub, but they elected a populist Democratic Governor, Wyoming voted scrub, but gave control to one (or both. I don't remember) of their legislative bodies to the Democrats. Virginia voted scrub, but seems to be leaning more towards Democrats at state level.
Pennsylvania which voted Kerry has two pukie Senators, Minnesota Kerry, but they have Coleman.
If you're talking at all levels I think it's Colorado where the Republicans are in the most trouble. It's a military state in the south, but it has a lot of transplanted Californians and Washingtonians.

[Doctor_J]

32. Good point.

See post #31 below. CO is a live possibility, I hear.

[blonndee]

11. Other: New Mexico. I actually don't even think it WENT red,

even though it "officially" did in 2004. I'm a NM native, and I think even enough of the Bushers will wake up before too long. *'s popularity in NM has dropped DRAMATICALLY over the last few months. I don't know what the link is to that state-by-state approval rating table, but I was stunned when I saw how much he'd sunk. He's got a HIGH, HIGH disapproval rating there, compared to what it was alleged to be at the time of the election.

New Mexico has a lot of old-school Dems, besides its large Hispanic population which tends to go blue. Lots of farmers and ranchers come from long lines of Dems, lots of whom switched around Reagan and have slowly become more conservative. But I think someone like Edwards or anyone who will LISTEN to them and consider their needs could really make a difference in the political makeup and interest in that state.

[TheFarseer]

12. Virginia

We'll know alot more after the governor's election. Also, Iowa, maybe Missouri, maybe Colorado and call me crazy, but how about Montana or the Dakotas?

[Zynx]

28. Montana is trending Dem ever so slightly.

The Dakotas are a lost cause on the national level.

Missouri bothers me because it seems to actually be trending more Republican as time goes on.

[Ian David]

13. Louisiana. If they don't turn blue after this, they should be jettisoned.

[carpetbagger]

25. But racism is such a soothing GOP salve.

Blue Louisiana has been jettisoned, literally.

[...of J.Temperance]

40. A lot of the Louisiana white voters

Are Democrats, see my above post further up, strong Populism going on. Also it's impossible to predict what happens in Louisiana politics, because it's so unique. The only thing I'd say is that all of these Repukes that are rubbing their grubby hands together at the prospect of getting hold of Louisiana...in Louisiana politics, what people usually predict, the opposite usually happens.

[BlueIris]

14. N.C.--They were robbed, and they know it.

Good luck keeping that stronghold, fellas. It's going for blue next time.

[depakid]

18. That'll be the day

North Carolina is is just as full of fundies as ever. Hell, if Jeese Helms ran again, they'd vote him right back in.

[ncrainbowgrrl]

53. Um... not all of NC.

:hi:

I'm proud to claim the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus as a fellow North Carolinian!
Mel Watt- D-NC


Also see other progressive/more constituent-driven representatives:
David Price, D-NC (My rep)
Brad Miller, D-NC

Also, see our state legislature:

House- controlled by Dems
Senate- controlled by Dems

Governor: Dem
Lt. Governor: Dem

[leyton]

72. Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Wyoming have Democratic governors.

Are they likely to go blue any time soon?

The state Democratic party is strong in NC, I'll grant you that. But NC is not going blue any time soon. The closest it's come in recent times is Bill Clinton's near victory in 1992. Bush won the state by at least ten points both times. I don't know of any reason that NC will suddenly develop a liberal streak.

[ultraist]

82. That's right, rainbowgirl

There are many solid blue areas in NC and we WILL be a swing state in 08. I'm keeping my fingers crossed now that we have new voting legislation.

[GreenInNC]

63. Charlotte

Largest city in the state: Dem City Council, Dem County Commission, Dem School Board and Dem Soil and Water Conservation Board (I only add the last one because I am on it, LOL)

[ultraist]

83. Kerry and Edwards won Charlotte and all of Mecklenburg county.

The South also has the fatest growing population---it is shifting Dem also due to the influx of Northerners.

We have one way to go here and that's towards BLUE. I have no doubts that it will happen.

[Hippo_Tron]

69. Between Charlotte, Chapel Hill, etc. you would think North Carolina...

Would be more blue. I guess there is a lot of fundie country to balance it out.

[ncrainbowgrrl]

54. Thanks for the NC vote, BlueIris!

:hi:

It makes me happy when people outside of this state recognize the work that's been done here in NC to change things on the ground!

[BlueIris]

64. No problem!

Good luck with the continued fight for change. I'm pulling for you.

[ultraist]

84. Thanks, BlueIris

:thumbsup:

We aren't giving up.

NC has very low approval ratings for Bush right now and more registered Dems, than Repubs. There is hope for NC.

[s-cubed]

15. VA - if the machines don't get us.

On the local level, there are a number of very good Democrats running for the state legislature. People outside the area don't know it, but we had a bruising battle a couple of years ago between the Democratic governor, Warner, the Democrats and a few monderate pubs against the no-taxes guys. This at a time the state was in serious financial shape. The no-taxes lost, even though the pubs were in control of the legislature.

Unless our machines are totally cooked, I think the legislature has a chance of a significant swing. (I'm not sure if there are enough seats at stake to overthrow the pugs). Kaine & Kilgore have been running neck & neck lately, but the trend has been toward Kaine. Kilgore has run some dispicable ads, which have probably hurt him. The state can be roughly divided into the northern area, which is the financial power house, and which keeps growing, vs. the rest of the state, which is more rural and less wealthy. In the Kerry-* election, Fairfax, the largest NoVa county, went for Kerry, a significant change. (If the votes were rigged, I think it was in the other areas of the state, where it would be less noticable).

At any rate, I view the local races as more significant than the governor or national ones. But if there is a sweep in VA toward the Dems - despite the machines, it is very good news. If most Dems lose, I will suspect vote fraud. (See, I'm partisan and cynical).

[William769]

17. Florida. nt.

[Robbins]

20. Missouri

After Ohio we are the state that Bush won where he now has a majority
disapproving him. Bush and the no good Governor Blunt are hurting
Republicans here. We have a chance to elect a Democratic Senator In
2006,and If the Dem's listen to Dean Missouri could be In the Blue column In 2008.

[OKDem08]

22. Welcome to DU, Robbins!

my husband and I are working on OK

[Terran]

47. I agree on Missouri

We have a long history of being a Democratic majority, up until just a few years ago. Dems can take it back again, especially after the heartless way the gov and the legislature have behaved.

[newyawker99]

51. Hi Robbins!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[k j]

66. I have hope...

for Missouri as well. With Claire McCaskill taking on Jim Talent's (formerly Jean Carnahan's) Senate seat, and Roy Blunt's Dim Sun Gov. Matt universally panned, well, there's hope. Even in the rural areas.

[nickshepDEM]

24. CO is trending Democrat.

In 2004 we won both state house's and elected a Democratic U.S. Senator. In 2006 we have a great chance to win the Governor's Mansion too.

[Zynx]

27. I think in a decade CO will be a decidedly Democratic leaning state.

[Doctor_J]

34. That's great news - two questions

1. Who's running for Governor? I been hearing for 10 years that Elway want to be a GOP politico. Will he jump up next year?

2. Where, regionally, is the trend happening? I have been avoiding CO in my job search because of its redness. Which areas are turning blue?

[Writer]

44. Then we kicked out the Chair of the State Party because

he supported Salazar and not Miles in the senatorial primaries.

[Kokonoe]

26. Tennessee

:party:

[nickshepDEM]

30. I literally LOL'd when I read that...

[MadisonProgressive]

29. Did you have a brain fart when you forgot Ohio?

[Doctor_J]

31. No I was thinking that OH was pretty much blue already,

or at least a toss-up. I didn't just mean states that went red a year ago. I meant states that are considered pretty conservative, but might be growing more liberal.

[stopbush]

36. Nevada

[Democrat 4 Ever]

42. I've got my fingers crossed for Kentucky - there are numerous

repuke scandals going on right now. Kentucky was deep blue for years and years until McConnell started his hate campaign. Then he spread the "hate" to all other repuke candidates but it is getting so old. Especially since his personally endorsed governor and the administration is so rife with ethical issues right now.

The poll numbers are really trending against the repukes so all I've got are my hopes and dreams...but they are my hopes and dreams for Kentucky.

[DaveinMD]

50. Scandal

against the Dem governor is what really turned the state red. So, I would think it could change back with the Republican scandals.

[leyton]

73. Did Kentucky not go to Clinton by just a hair in 1996?

I was under the impression it was only barely blue for him.

[Jai4WKC08]

45. If you mean a change in "attitude"

...as opposed to just electing the occasional Democratic governor or senator, then I gotta go with Arkansas. Of all the southern states, they have the longest and best record of relatively liberal attitudes (compared to the rest of the South). Bill Clinton was governor an awfully long time, they have two Democratic senators now, and quite a few Democratic reps. And quite frankly, Wes Clark is extremely well respected there, and while he's not running for anything, he's speaking all around the state about Democratic values and stumping for Democratic candidates and causes. Without the media interference he has to run at the national level, the people of Arkansas are listening, and they like what they hear.

I just wish Arkansas had more electoral votes. Sigh...

Most of the other southern states are not gonna change overall any time soon. They are just generally regressive and always have been (and I say that as someone who grew up in GA and went to college in FL).

VA elected Warner, and I hope to God they elect Kaine. If they do, it will probably be because the Repug running against him is such an idiot. But unless Warner is the 08 nominee, they're not likely to flip to blue, and even then it would be a hard fight. They are fundamentally a red state, and only slightly less so because of the heavily populated northern area around DC and the fact that their gubnatorial elections run in off years, when not so many folks vote. But the vast majority of VA is old-South, as much as GA, AL or MS.

If there were one other southern state likely to change, it might be Louisianna. For all that they're not too happy with their governor, seems to me the Bush/Brown FEMA fumbling has made them even angrier. And LA has a high percentage of fairly loyal Democrats, but not liberal ones, who reside there.

I just don't see anything much changing in MO, AZ or AK. MO might flip, because they have a long history of switching back and forth, and the current state government is not particularly well thought of. But I wouldn't say the basic attitudes within the state have changed.

Flipping Arizona would take a much greater effort to mobilize the Native American and Hispanic communities--the Greens just aren't enough. Alaska may have a lot of libertarians, but they like the oil money that Repubs bring to their state too much to ever go blue. Most Alaskans are more than happy to see drilling in the ANWR.

[Ignacio Upton]

46. Either OH or IA or NM or NV

There's no definative answer. Although it could be disputed that OH is even a red state at all.

[alfredo]

49. Ohio and Kentucky. Both states have suffered under very corrupt

Republican rule. If I was to choose between the two, I would go with Ohio because of higher education standards there.

[Awsi Dooger]

56. Here are partisan tendency charts if you want to look for apparent trends

I post the individual state numbers occasionally, but here's all 50 plus the District of Columbia. I haven't posted them as a group in quite a while. The numbers at right are in net relation to the national popular vote average, explained at the beginning.

I would say the legit recent moves in our direction that will apparently continue are Virginia and Colorado. I'm much less confident about Ohio. I think it's still red at base instinct by about 2-3 points with little to zero foundational change, but the recent lousy state economy and problems with GOP elected officials have made it appear more neutral than reality. Missouri (slightly) and West Virginia and Louisiana appear to be slipping away, at least at the presidential level.

I live in Nevada and IMO it is not turning blue as rapidly as these numbers indicate. Rural Nevada is as conservative as ever and votes heavily especially the people with mining connections. Southern Nevada became increasingly concerned with terrorism post-9/11 since the big hotels are oft-rumored as potential targets. Influx of high income transplanted westerners in Clark County has counterracted the Hispanic influence. Yucca Mountain figures as a lesser voting factor as the years advance.

You will note that some of the states we lost in 2004, like Iowa and New Mexico, actually tilted more in our favor compared to the national percentage than they did in 2000, when Gore won them. Also, states like Minnesota, Oregon and Washington appear to have dramatically turned our way in 2004, but that's primarily the absence of Nader influence compared to 2000.

You simply can't afford to lose nationally by 2.5%, or anything close to that, and expect to win the White House. The year 2004 was a very rare opportunity to slip in via isolated states. My belief is the national popular vote margin is basically dumped on each state and the voters adjust it as they see fit. In the future, I suggest we win the popular vote and let everything fall into place. And yes, I remember 2000. I also know probability. We need to let the percentages work in our favor. No Diebold in my evaluations. Cynics have plenty of room for that elsewhere.

Here are the national presidential numbers, followed by the statewide breakdown:

'88: George Bush Sr. 53.37%, Michael Dukakis 45.65% = Republican by 7.72%
'92: Bill Clinton 43.01%, George Bush Sr. 37.45% = Democratic by 5.56%
'96: Bill Clinton 49.24%, Bob Dole 40.71% = Democratic by 8.53%
'00: Al Gore 48.38%, George W. Bush 47.87% = Democratic by 0.51%
'04: George Bush 50.73%, John Kerry 48.27% = Republican by 2.46%

Example, while looking at the individual states: Clinton, with an 8.53 national margin in '96, wins Florida by 48.02 to 42.32, or 5.70%. The net margin at right, therefore, is actually + 2.83% Republican, since Clinton did not manage his 8.53 number.

Alabama:
'88: Bush (59.17 - 39.86) = + 11.59% Republican
'92: Bush (47.65 - 40.88) = + 12.33% Republican
'96: Dole (50.12 - 43.16) = + 15.49% Republican
'00: Bush (56.47 - 41.59) = + 15.39% Republican
'04: Bush (62.46 - 36.84) = + 23.16% Republican

Alaska:
'88: Bush (59.59 - 36.27) = + 15.60% Republican
'92: Bush (39.46 - 30.29) = + 14.73% Republican
'96: Dole (50.80 - 33.27) = + 26.06% Republican
'00: Bush (58.62 - 27.67) = + 31.46% Republican
'04: Bush (61.07 - 35.52) = + 23.09% Republican

Arizona:
'88: Bush (59.95 - 38.74) = + 13.49% Republican
'92: Bush (38.47 - 36.52) = + 7.51% Republican
'96: Clinton (46.52 - 44.29) = + 6.30% Republican
'00: Bush (51.02 - 44.73) = + 6.80% Republican
'04: Bush (54.87 - 44.40) = + 8.01% Republican

Arkansas:
'88: Bush (56.37 - 42.19) = + 6.46% Republican
'92: Clinton (53.21 - 35.48) = + 12.17% Democratic
'96: Clinton (53.74 - 36.80) = + 8.41% Democratic
'00: Bush (51.31 - 45.86) = + 5.76% Republican
'04: Bush (54.31 - 44.55) = + 7.30% Republican
(note: '92 and '96 are obviously more reflective of a massive favorite son swing than political tendencies of the state. notice the extremely similar non-Clinton net margins of '88, '00 and '04)

California:
'88: Bush (51.13 - 47.56) = + 4.15% Democratic
'92: Clinton (46.01 - 32.61) = + 7.84% Democratic
'96: Clinton (51.10 - 38.21) = + 4.36% Democratic
'00: Gore (53.45 - 41.65) = + 11.29% Democratic
'04: Kerry (54.31 - 44.36) = + 12.41% Democratic

Colorado:
'88: Bush (53.06 - 45.28) = + 0.06% Republican
'92: Clinton (40.13 - 35.87) = + 1.30% Republican
'96: Dole (45.80 - 44.43) = + 9.90% Republican
'00: Bush (50.75 - 42.39) = + 8.87% Republican
'04: Bush (51.69 - 47.02) = + 2.21% Republican

Connecticut:
'88: Bush (51.98 - 46.87) = + 2.61% Democratic
'92: Clinton (42.21 - 35.78) = + 0.87% Democratic
'96: Clinton (52.83 - 34.69) = + 9.61% Democratic
'00: Gore (55.91 - 38.44) = + 16.96% Democratic
'04: Kerry (54.31 - 43.95) = + 12.82% Democratic
(note: again, note the obvious Lieberman influence from 2000, worth the standard 3 to 4 points for a VP nominee if the state has not been represented on the ticket recently)

Delaware:
'88: Bush (55.88 - 43.48) = + 4.68% Republican
'92: Clinton (43.51 - 35.31) = + 2.64% Democratic
'96: Clinton (51.82 - 36.58) = + 6.71% Democratic
'00: Gore (54.96 - 41.90) = + 12.55% Democratic
'04: Kerry (53.35 - 45.75) = + 10.06% Democratic

District of Columbia:
'88: Dukakis (83.70 - 14.49) = + 76.93% Democratic
'92: Clinton (84.64 - 9.10) = + 69.98% Democratic
'96: Clinton (85.19 - 9.34) = + 67.32% Democratic
'00: Gore (85.16 - 8.95) = + 75.70% Democratic
'04: Kerry (89.18 - 9.34) = + 82.30% Democratic

Florida:
'88: Bush (60.87 - 38.51) = + 14.64% Republican
'92: Bush (40.89 - 39.00) = + 7.45% Republican
'96: Clinton (48.02 - 42.32) = + 2.83% Republican
'00: Bush* (48.85 - 48.84) = + 0.52% Republican
* (my estimated adjustment, after elongated analysis and plenty of admitted guesswork, was Gore 49.18 - Bush 48.53 = + 0.14% Democratic)
'04: Bush (52.10 - 47.09) = + 2.55% Republican
(note: just the opposite of Ohio, Florida's state economy was MUCH better than the nation as a whole throughout 2004. Many of us severely underestimated that leading to November. I think it's still slightly a GOP state, but not to the extent the 2.55% implies)

Georgia:
'88: Bush (59.75 - 39.50) = + 12.53% Republican
'92: Clinton (43.47 - 42.88) = + 4.97% Republican
'96: Dole (47.01 - 45.84) = + 9.70% Republican
'00: Bush (54.67 - 42.98) = + 12.20% Republican
'04: Bush (57.97 - 41.37) = + 14.14% Republican

Hawaii:
'88: Dukakis (54.27 - 44.75) = + 17.24% Democratic
'92: Clinton (48.09 - 36.70) = + 5.83% Democratic
'96: Clinton (56.93 - 31.64) = + 16.76% Democratic
'00: Gore (55.79 - 37.46) = + 17.82% Democratic
'04: Kerry (54.01 - 45.26) = +11.21% Democratic

Idaho:
'88: Bush (62.08 - 36.01) = + 18.35% Republican
'92: Bush (42.03 - 28.42) = + 19.17% Republican
'96: Dole (52.18 - 33.65) = + 27.06% Republican
'00: Bush (67.17 - 27.64) = + 40.04% Republican
'04: Bush (68.38 - 30.26) = + 35.66% Republican

Illinois:
'88: Bush (50.69 - 48.60) = + 5.63% Democratic
'92: Clinton (48.58 - 34.34) = + 8.68% Democratic
'96: Clinton (54.31 - 36.81) = + 8.97% Democratic
'00: Gore (54.60 - 42.58) = + 11.51% Democratic
'04: Kerry (54.82 - 44.48) = + 12.80% Democratic

Indiana:
'88: Bush (59.84 - 39.69) = + 12.43% Republican
'92: Bush (42.91 - 36.79) = + 11.68% Republican
'96: Dole (47.13 - 41.55) = + 14.11% Republican
'00: Bush (56.65 - 41.01) = + 16.15% Republican
'04: Bush (59.94 - 39.26) = + 18.22% Republican

Iowa:
'88: Dukakis (54.71 - 44.50) = + 17.93% Democratic
'92: Clinton (43.29 - 37.27) = + 0.46% Democratic
'96: Clinton (50.26 - 39.92) = + 1.81% Democratic
'00: Gore (48.54 - 48.22) = + 0.19% Republican
'04: Bush (49.90 - 49.23) = + 1.79% Democratic

Kansas:
'88: Bush (55.79 - 42.56) = + 5.51% Republican
'92: Bush (38.88 - 33.74) = + 10.70% Republican
'96: Dole (54.29 - 36.08) = + 26.74% Republican
'00: Bush (58.04 - 37.24) = + 21.31% Republican
'04: Bush (62.00 - 36.62) = + 22.92% Republican

Kentucky:
'88: Bush (55.52 - 43.88) = + 3.92% Republican
'92: Clinton (44.55 - 41.34) = + 2.35% Republican
'96: Clinton (45.84 - 44.88) = + 7.57% Republican
'00: Bush (56.50 - 41.37) = + 15.64% Republican
'04: Bush (59.55 - 39.69) = + 17.40% Republican

Louisiana:
'88: Bush (54.27 - 44.06) = + 2.49% Republican
'92: Clinton (45.58 - 40.97) = + 0.95% Republican
'96: Clinton (52.01 - 39.94) = + 3.54% Democratic
'00: Bush (52.55 - 44.88) = + 8.18% Republican
'04: Bush (56.72 - 42.22) = + 12.04% Republican

Maine:
'88: Bush (55.34 - 43.88) = + 3.66% Republican
'92: Clinton (38.77 - 30.44) = + 2.77% Democratic
'96: Clinton (51.62 - 30.76) = + 12.33% Democratic
'00: Gore (49.09 - 43.97) = + 4.61% Democratic
'04: Kerry (53.57 - 44.58) = + 11.45% Democratic

Maryland:
'88: Bush (51.11 - 48.20) = + 4.81% Democratic
'92: Clinton (49.80 - 35.62) = + 8.62% Democratic
'96: Clinton (54.25 - 38.27) = + 7.45% Democratic
'00: Gore (56.57 - 40.18) = + 15.88% Democratic
'04: Kerry (55.91 - 42.93) = + 15.44% Democratic

Massachusetts:
'88: Dukakis (53.23 - 45.37) = + 15.58% Democratic
'92: Clinton (47.54 - 29.02) = + 12.96% Democratic
'96: Clinton (61.47 - 28.08) = + 24.86% Democratic
'00: Gore (59.80 - 32.50) = + 26.79% Democratic
'04: Kerry (61.94 - 36.78) = + 27.62% Democratic

Michigan:
'88: Bush (53.57 - 45.67) = + 0.18% Republican
'92: Clinton (43.77 - 36.38) = + 1.83% Democratic
'96: Clinton (51.69 - 38.48) = + 4.68% Democratic
'00: Gore (51.28 - 46.14) = + 4.63% Democratic
'04: Kerry (51.23 - 47.81) = + 5.88% Democratic

Minnesota:
'88: Dukakis (52.91 - 45.90) = + 14.73% Democratic
'92: Clinton (43.48 - 31.85) = + 6.07% Democratic
'96: Clinton (51.10 - 34.96) = + 7.61% Democratic
'00: Gore (47.91 - 45.50) = + 1.90% Democratic
'04: Kerry (51.09 - 47.61) = + 5.94% Democratic

Mississippi:
'88: Bush (59.89 - 39.07) = + 13.10% Republican
'92: Bush (49.68 - 40.77) = + 14.47% Republican
'96: Dole (49.21 - 44.08) = + 13.66% Republican
'00: Bush (57.62 - 40.70) = + 17.43% Republican
'04: Bush (59.45 - 39.73) = + 17.26% Republican

Missouri:
'88: Bush (51.82 - 47.84) = + 3.74% Democratic
'92: Clinton (44.07 - 33.92) = + 4.59% Democrat
'96: Clinton (47.54 - 41.24) = + 2.23% Republican
'00: Bush (50.42 - 47.08) = + 3.85% Republican
'04: Bush (53.30 - 46.10) = + 4.74% Republican

Montana:
'88: Bush (52.07 - 46.20) = + 1.85% Democratic
'92: Clinton (37.63 - 35.12) = + 3.05% Republican
'96: Dole (44.11 - 41.23) = + 11.41% Republican
'00: Bush (58.44 - 33.36) = + 25.59% Republican
'04: Bush (59.07 - 38.56) = + 18.05% Republican

Nebraska:
'88: Bush (60.15 - 39.20) = + 13.23% Republican
'92: Bush (46.58 - 29.40) = + 22.74% Republican
'96: Dole (53.66 - 34.95) = + 27.24% Republican
'00: Bush (62.25 - 33.25) = + 29.51% Republican
'04: Bush (65.90 - 32.68) = + 30.76% Republican

Nevada:
'88: Bush (58.86 - 37.92) = + 13.22% Republican
'92: Clinton (37.36 - 34.73) = + 2.93% Republican
'96: Clinton (43.93 - 42.91) = + 7.51% Republican
'00: Bush (49.52 - 45.98) = + 4.05% Republican
'04: Bush (50.47 - 47.88) = + 0.13% Republican

New Hampshire:
'88: Bush (62.41 - 36.29) = + 18.40% Republican
'92: Clinton (38.86 - 37.64) = + 4.34% Republican
'96: Clinton (49.32 - 39.37) = + 1.42% Democratic
'00: Bush (48.07 - 46.80) = + 1.78% Republican
'04: Kerry (50.24 - 48.87) = + 3.83% Democratic

New Jersey:
'88: Bush (56.24 - 42.60) = + 5.92% Republican
'92: Clinton (42.95 - 40.58) = + 3.19% Republican
'96: Clinton (53.72 - 35.86) = + 9.33% Democratic
'00: Gore (56.13 - 40.29) = + 15.33% Democratic
'04: Kerry (52.92 - 46.24) = + 9.14% Democratic

New Mexico:
'88: Bush (51.86 - 46.90) = + 2.76 Democratic
'92: Clinton (45.90 - 37.34) = + 3.00% Democratic
'96: Clinton (49.18 - 41.86) = + 1.21% Republican
'00: Gore (47.91 - 47.85) = + 0.45% Republican
'04: Bush (49.84 - 49.05) = + 1.67% Democratic

New York:
'88: Dukakis (51.62 - 47.52) = + 11.82% Democratic
'92: Clinton (49.73 - 33.88) = + 10.29% Democratic
'96: Clinton (59.47 - 30.61) = + 20.33% Democratic
'00: Gore (60.21 - 35.23) = + 24.47% Democratic
'04: Kerry (58.37 - 40.08) = + 20.75% Democratic

North Carolina:
'88: Bush (57.97 - 41.71) = + 8.54% Republican
'92: Bush (43.44 - 42.65) = + 6.35% Republican
'96: Dole (48.73 - 44.04) = + 13.22% Republican
'00: Bush (56.03 - 43.20) = + 13.34% Republican
'04: Bush (56.02 - 43.58) = + 9.98% Republican
(note: based on the near-identical partisan numbers from 1996 and 2000, John Edwards provided precisely the typical 3-4 point VP boost in his home state. Denying he was of any help, or expecting much more, is not good handicapping)

North Dakota:
'88: Bush (56.03 - 42.97) = + 5.34% Republican
'92: Bush (44.22 - 32.18) = + 17.60% Republican
'96: Dole (46.94 - 40.13) = + 15.34% Republican
'00: Bush (60.66 - 33.06) = + 28.11% Republican
'04: Bush (62.86 - 35.50) = + 24.90% Republican

Ohio:
'88: Bush (55.00 - 44.15) = + 3.13% Republican
'92: Clinton (40.18 - 38.35) = + 3.73% Republican
'96: Clinton (47.38 - 41.02) = + 2.17% Republican
'00: Bush (49.97 - 46.46) = + 4.02% Republican
'04: Bush (50.81 - 48.71) = + 0.36% Democratic
(note: I would be hesitant to expect Ohio to remain a dead-even or slightly Democratic state compared to the national vote. It suffered a much worse than average state economy from 2000 to 2004 and may revert to the typical 2-4 point GOP edge if that balances out)

Oklahoma:
'88: Bush (57.93 - 41.28) = + 8.93% Republican
'92: Bush (42.65 - 34.02) = + 14.19% Republican
'96: Dole (48.26 - 40.45) = + 16.34% Republican
'00: Bush (60.31 - 38.43) = + 22.39% Republican
'04: Bush (65.57 - 34.43) = + 28.68% Republican

Oregon:
'88: Dukakis (51.28 - 46.61) = + 12.39% Democratic
'92: Clinton (42.48 - 32.53) = + 4.39% Democratic
'96: Clinton (47.15 - 39.06) = + 0.44% Republican
'00: Gore (46.96 - 46.52) = + 0.07% Republican
'04: Kerry (51.35 - 47.19) = + 6.62% Democratic

Pennsylvania:
'88: Bush (50.70 - 48.39) = + 5.41% Democratic
'92: Clinton (45.15 - 36.13) = + 3.46% Democratic
'96: Clinton (49.17 - 39.97) = + 0.67% Democratic
'00: Gore (50.60 - 46.43) = + 3.66% Democratic
'04: Kerry (50.92 - 48.42) = + 4.96% Democratic

Rhode Island:
'88: Dukakis (55.64 - 43.93) = + 19.43% Democratic
'92: Clinton (47.04 - 29.02) = + 12.46% Democratic
'96: Clinton (59.71 - 26.82) = + 24.36% Democratic
'00: Gore (60.99 - 31.91) = + 28.57% Democratic
'04: Kerry (59.42 - 38.67) = + 23.21% Democratic

South Carolina:
'88: Bush (61.50 - 37.58) = + 16.20% Republican
'92: Bush (48.02 - 39.88) = + 13.70% Republican
'96: Dole (49.79 - 43.96) = + 14.36% Republican
'00: Bush (56.84 - 40.90) = + 16.45% Republican
'04: Bush (57.98 - 40.90) = + 14.62% Republican

South Dakota:
'88: Bush (52.85 - 46.51) = + 1.38% Democratic
'92: Bush (40.66 - 37.14) = + 9.08% Republican
'96: Dole (46.49 - 43.03) = + 11.99% Republican
'00: Bush (60.30 - 37.56) = + 23.25% Republican
'04: Bush (59.91 - 38.44) = + 19.01% Republican

Tennessee:
'88: Bush (57.89 - 41.55) = + 8.62% Republican
'92: Clinton (47.08 - 42.43) = + 0.91% Republican
'96: Clinton (48.00 - 45.59) = + 6.12% Republican
'00: Bush (51.15 - 47.28) = + 4.38% Republican
'04: Bush (56.80 - 42.53) = + 11.81% Republican
(note: notice the obvious impact Gore had in '92, '96 and 2000 while on the ticket. He gets a bad rap for not carrying his home state. Based on the numbers from 1988 and 2004 without Gore on the ticket, Tennessee obviously defaults to basically 10 points more Republican than the nation as a whole. Probably slightly less than that, since we did not campaign in Tennessee during 2004, skewing the number high)

Texas:
'88: Bush (55.95 - 43.35) = + 4.88% Republican
'92: Bush (40.56 - 37.08) = + 9.04% Republican
'96: Dole (48.76 - 43.83) = + 13.46% Republican
'00: Bush (59.30 - 37.98) = + 21.83% Republican
'04: Bush (61.09 - 38.22) = + 20.41% Republican
(note: like Arkansas in '92 and '96, Texas '00 and '04 is certainly candidate-driven to some degree and inflated several points from the actual partisanship of the state)

Utah:
'88: Bush (66.22 - 32.05) = + 26.45% Republican
'92: Bush (43.36 - 24.65) = + 24.27% Republican
'96: Dole (54.37 - 33.30) = + 29.60% Republican
'00 Bush (66.83 - 26.34) = + 41.00% Republican
'04: Bush (71.54 - 26.00) = + 43.08% Republican

Vermont:
'88: Bush (51.10 - 47.58) = + 4.20% Democratic
'92: Clinton (46.11 - 30.42) = + 10.13% Democratic
'96: Clinton (53.35 - 31.09) = + 13.73% Democratic
'00: Gore (50.63 - 40.70) = + 9.42% Democratic
'04: Kerry (58.94 - 38.80) = + 22.60% Democratic

Virginia:
'88: Bush (59.74 - 39.23) = + 12.79% Republican
'92: Bush (44.97 - 40.59) = + 9.94% Republican
'96: Dole (47.10 - 45.15) = + 10.48% Republican
'00: Bush (52.47 - 44.44) = + 8.54% Republican
'04: Bush (53.68 - 45.48) = + 5.74% Republican

Washington:
'88: Dukakis (50.05 - 48.46) = + 9.31% Democratic
'92: Clinton (43.40 - 31.96) = + 5.88% Democratic
'96: Clinton (49.84 - 37.30) = + 4.01% Democratic
'00: Gore (50.16 - 44.58) = + 5.07% Democratic
'04: Kerry (52.82 - 45.64) = + 9.64% Democratic

West Virginia:
'88: Dukakis (52.20 - 47.46) = + 12.46% Democratic
'92: Clinton (48.41 - 35.39) = + 7.46% Democratic
'96: Clinton (51.50 - 36.76) = + 6.21% Democratic
'00: Bush (51.92 - 45.59) = + 6.84% Republican
'04: Bush (56.06 - 43.20) = + 10.40% Republican

Wisconsin:
'88: Dukakis (51.41 - 47.80) = + 11.33% Democratic
'92: Clinton (41.13 - 36.78) = + 1.21% Republican
'96: Clinton (48.81 - 38.48) = + 1.80% Democratic
'00: Gore (47.83 - 47.61) = + 0.29% Republican
'04: Kerry (49.70 - 49.32) = + 2.84% Democratic

Wyoming:
'88: Bush (60.53 - 38.01) = + 14.80% Republican
'92: Bush (39.56 - 33.98) = + 11.14% Republican
'96: Dole (49.81 - 36.84) = + 21.50% Republican
'00: Bush (67.76 - 27.70) = + 40.57% Republican
'04: Bush (68.86 - 29.07) = + 37.33% Republican
(note: overlooked and irrelevant, but Cheney has apparently made a substantial impact here, predictably to somewhat lesser degree the second cycle on the ticket. Tiny amount of votes in Wyoming so a favorite son swing of thousands of votes has a much greater impact than typical in regard to percentages)

[Awsi Dooger]

74. I should mention one thing regarding these numbers

The highest populated states are actually somewhat misleading, because you're partially comparing the numbers to themselves when you look at the state's partisan slant in relation to the national popular vote.

Califiornia, for example, is actually much more left leaning than its numbers make it appear, compared to the rest of the nation combined. If you took the 12.4 million presidential California votes out of the national number in 2004 and then compared California's margin to the national numbers minus California, it would be a noticeable bump in California's partisan index toward Democrats. I have a separate chart in that regard but it gets confusing so I never post it. In most cases KISS or keep it simple stupid is preferable. The mid-to-small populus states are basically identical, no matter which way you look at the numbers.

[DuaneBidoux]

58. Agree on Ohio

Rural is still red but there is Cinni and Cleveland and I was recently in Columbus a university town and growing like a weed. Put this together with the parts of rural that are fed up losing jobs and I think a decent blue candidate in 08 will put them over that thin line.

The only thing we have to watch out for (of course) is those paperless voting machines.

[Daylin Byak]

61. My take on this

We could get Kentucky. There has been some problems there with there GOP governor Ernie Fletcher and Jim bunning barely won the Senate race last year againist Daniel Malgrinaldo.

Tennessee is looking pretty good, out of the 9 congressional seats they have we control 5 of them they control one of the legistures there and they have a dem governor in Fred Bredesen not to mention Herold Ford has been doing a great job campaigning for the senate race next year.

Iowa's purple right not,Bush barely won the state by 1% and they do have a dem governor in Tom Vilsack and we could be destined to take the 1st district next year so cross your fingers.

Montana we could have a chance, bush's ratings is going down the tubes in that state and have a popular governor in brian schwitzer and how there talking on the montana forum we could take could take conrad burns' seat.

All in all it's looking pretty good for us and i'm sorry if i couldn't provide a scientific answer for this like in the previous threads.

[tnlefty]

91. The governor is PHIL Bredesen, not Fred.

The last person that I saw, Beth Harwell, decided against challenging him as a repub, and he is so far unopposed. Harold Ford, Jr., and Rosalind Kurita are both candidates for the seat that FrankenFrist is vacating in '06. The repukes have 3 candidates for the senate, Ed Bryant, Van Hilleary, and Bob Corker. Corker's campaign hired one of the goons from the Swift Boats Liars, and I hope that they REALLY bloody each other up during their primary. That would be very interesting to watch.

[leanin_green]

59. New Mexico(it really was blue in 04 except for tally fraud).

[PhilipShore]

62. Colorado

Colorado—especially-- with being able to blame Bush, and the Republicans, so easily because of his flip flopping in 2000, on the Kyoto treaty.

Katrina--probably wakes some people up to the fact that Global warming is real.

___________________________________

Published on Monday, September 12, 2005 by CommonDreams.org
On Katrina, Global Warming
Speech given by Al Gore

There are scientific warnings now of another onrushing catastrophe. We were warned of an imminent attack by Al Qaeda; we didn't respond. We were warned the levees would break in New Orleans; we didn't respond. Now, the scientific community is warning us that the average hurricane will continue to get stronger because of global warming…

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0912-32.htm

[montana500]

77. ditto nm

[trayfoot]

65. Virginia

Yes, Warner IS that popular. He is a moderate and has made great strides here in VA! You will be seeing him on the Natiional Scene in coming years!

[Phoonzang]

75. Utah!

Nah, just kidding. :)

In reality I'd have to say Ohio or Florida. I don't think we should discount places like Nevada though. The thing is, we really need Ohio and Florida for '08..Nevada...not so important. Every electoral vote helps though.

[autorank]

76. AZ has public financing for stateelectoins. VA will be Blue in 2005

Warner will push the ticket over the top.

[win_in_06]

79. If Dick Gephart is selected as VP MO is a lock. Kerry would be president

right now had he picked Dick.

[J-Hen]

80. Gephart was not that well known

He had never ran in a state-wide election, just popular in St. Louis area. He might have helped a little in Missouri, but I don't know if he would have given it to Kerry.

[ultraist]

85. No way would Gephardt as VP have carried MO. n/t

[Blue_In_AK]

86. Alaska won't turn blue until Ted Stevens dies...

Then we MIGHT have a chance. Too many people up here have bought into the myth that the old geezer actually takes care of us. Bah.

[rndmprsn]

90. OHIO OHIO OHIO