If Warner gets the nomination, what red states are in play?

[MissCatholic]

Whatever happens in the next four years. We know that electoral colleges will grow in Colorado, Arizona, Nevada coz Bush wont close the border. So states like Michigan, Pennslyvania could suffer.

But we know that whoever gets the nomination, they have to be able to win Republican states. If Bush can win them with his record then its shows what problems the dems have.

Warner will bring Virginia into play.
Missouri will be in play because of his honesty.
Colorado will be in play because of pop gorwth and they do vote moderates. Although the dems need to find someone strong to take on Wayne Allard in 08.
Nevada could go dems.
Florida - if feingold gets vp?

Can Warner win Mn, Wi and Ia without spending too much cash there?

[ian]

Supposing that the campaigns of the Democrat and Republican getting the nom are equally fair, Warner--I believe--will get Missouri, Arkansas, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, Arkansas, North Carolina, Florida, and possibly even Tennessee.  But most might be swingers.

[Erc]

For the tenth time...

THE EV DISTRIBUTION WILL NOT CHANGE BETWEEN NOW AND 2008.

Thank You.

[Moooooo]

He wont win any "solid" red states. 

In Play:

Ohio
Florida
Missouri
Iowa
New Mexico
West Virginia
Nevada

LONG shots:

Virginia
North Carolina
Kentucky
Tennesee

Impossible:

All other "red" states.

[Akno21]

He has a better chance at Arkansas than Kentucky.

We'll know better if he can win Virginia after we see who wins the gubernatorial election there this year. If his Lt. Gov. wins, that's a good sign.

[MHS2002]

In play:
Iowa
New Mexico
Ohio
Nevada
West Virginia

Marginal chances:
Colorado
Florida
Missouri
Virginia
Arkansas

Anything else is kinda pushing it.

[AuH2O]

Everything is a trade off.

[Moooooo]

Everything is a trade off.

What do you mean?

[AuH2O]

You don't add without subtracting in politics. Whatever Warner puts into play he loses somewhere else in an absolute sense (not that he would definitely lose, say, Michigan, but his relative performance in certain states would be weaker than Kerry's).

[Moooooo]

You don't add without subtracting in politics. Whatever Warner puts into play he loses somewhere else in an absolute sense (not that he would definitely lose, say, Michigan, but his relative performance in certain states would be weaker than Kerry's).

Gotcha'. 

[??????????]

I would move Florida into the longshot category. You Dems have lost Florida for quite some time. The black vote is actually coming into the 21st Century here and we are picking up some decent black support.

[Rob]

I would move Florida into the longshot category. You Dems have lost Florida for quite some time. The black vote is actually coming into the 21st Century here and we are picking up some decent black support.

Hope springs eternal .

Florida will be a prime swing state in '08, as will be Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa, and Ohio. Long shots for the Democrats are Colorado, Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia, and Virginia.

[??????????]

I would move Florida into the longshot category. You Dems have lost Florida for quite some time. The black vote is actually coming into the 21st Century here and we are picking up some decent black support.

Hope springs eternal .

Florida will be a prime swing state in '08, as will be Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa, and Ohio. Long shots for the Democrats are Colorado, Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia, and West Virginia.

Florida will not be a "prime" swing state. Believe me, Republicans own this state.

[skybridge]

The Dems only need to win a big state like Florida or Ohio. However, with Warner that wont happen because he basically constitutes 2008's John Edwards.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Dems only need to win a big state like Florida or Ohio. However, with Warner that wont happen because he basically constitutes 2008's John Edwards.

Hey why not run them both? Maybe they can get some sort of weird regional advantage and win both their home states of VA and NC.

[skybridge]

The Dems only need to win a big state like Florida or Ohio. However, with Warner that wont happen because he basically constitutes 2008's John Edwards.

Hey why not run them both? Maybe they can get some sort of weird regional advantage and win both their home states of VA and NC.

Edwards didn't even bring the Dems close to winning North Carolina. I should have added the Warner basically constitutes 2008's John Edwards--only without charisma.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Arkansas
Colorado
Florida
Iowa
Missouri
Nevada
New Mexico
Ohio
Virginia

[Moooooo]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And Feingold is an arrogant jewish version of John Kerry w/ an even more liberal voting record that will get torn to shreds.  No, wait, Russ Feingold will be the Howard Dean of 2008.  The far left will love him and jump on his bandwagon, but he will finish a dissapointing 3rd or 4th in Iowa and be forced out of the race.  All the extreme liberals will pout and cry.  Vow to stay home on general election day.  Call foul on the DLC for pushing their candidate through the primaries.  Booo HOoo Hooo.

By the way...

Edwards and Warner are not comparable.
-Warner is a Governor.  Edwards was a Senator
-Warner has a decent list of accomplishments.  Edwards did not.
-Warner is well respected and popular in his home state.  Edwards was not.
-Warner is term limited.  Edwards took the VP slot because his Senate seat was gone.

And the list goes on... 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

And Feingold is an arrogant jewish version of John Kerry w/ an even more liberal voting record that will get torn to shreds.  No, wait, Russ Feingold will be the Howard Dean of 2008.  The far left will love him and jump on his bandwagon, but he will finish a dissapointing 3rd or 4th in Iowa and be forced out of the race.  All the extreme liberals will pout and cry.  Vow to stay home on general election day.  Call foul on the DLC for pushing their candidate through the primaries.  Booo HOoo Hooo.

Very true.  I'm increasingly of the opinion that Feingold is unelectable. But if he doesn't get the nomination, the far left will throw a fit and vote Green.

Democrats don't win elections by mindlessly bashing their base. People like Lieberman do the Democratic party more harm than good. Look at the Republican party. Do you see them trashing their conservative base? Do you see them talking about how they have to run a liberal? No. That's why they win.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Very true.  I'm increasingly of the opinion that Feingold is unelectable. But if he doesn't get the nomination, the far left will throw a fit and vote Green.

Democrats don't win elections by mindlessly bashing their base. People like Lieberman do the Democratic party more harm than good. Look at the Republican party. Do you see them trashing their conservative base? Do you see them talking about how they have to run a liberal? No. That's why they win.

Maybe if the Democrats did bash "their base" (you know, the "loyal" Dems who voted for Nader), then they would actually win elections. f**ck the left wingers. They should start their own little party, and let the smart Democrats handle things.

You're an idiot. By bashing the base and saying we need to move more conservative, you're basically saying that liberalism is wrong and being conservative is the way to go. Voters will then agree, and vote for the Republican over the Republican-lite.

If you want to have the Democrats keep losing elections, you can keep following this formula. If, however, you'd like to see Democrats win some elections, then you have to learn about framing. The Republicans are fairly good at framing, and moderate Democrats tend to be awful.

George Lakoff has written some good books on framing.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yes, liberalism is wrong. It's certainly not right for winning elections.

Oh, but you say the Democrats need to move left to win. Yes, because McGovern, Dukakis, and Kerry were such excellent candidates, LOL. Why don't you get the f**ck out of the party and become a Green? They're a much better fit for your type.

Kerry wasn't a liberal, and he got 59 million votes. Do you have a g point? Get the  out of the party? Wow, you really must enjoy losing.  you.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yes, you're an idiot. "Kerry wasn't a liberal", LOL.

Legitimate rankings showed him ranking as the 20-something most liberal Senator. He voted for the Iraq war.

And you didn't address the fact that as liberal as you say he was, he still got 59 million votes. Aside from Bush 2004, no one comes even close to those numbers.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Haha, I see I've upset Birkenstock Boy. I already responded to this message, but this added part is just too good. Go cry somewhere else.

You're just an idiot who enjoys helping the Democratic party lose.  If you were at all concerned about what the Republican party is doing to America, you'd turn your guns on them, and learn about the framing of issues. As it is, you're hurting the Democratic party.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Nice response. I can see why you're upset, though: Being called on your idiocy must hurt. Sorry, but someone had to come out and say it.

You're the idiot if you have any problem with the right-wing Republicans running this country.

On the other hand, if you enjoy having them control the entire federal government, keep up this stupid bashing of liberals.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

How hard is this to understand:

If you spend all of your time bashing liberal Democrats when right-wing Republicans run this country, you're basically supporting right-wing Republicans.

I think you don't give a sh**t that they control this country, and so you have no useful advice for the Democratic party, since we don't take advice from people who want us to lose.