Howard Dean pours extra money into four red states.

[TheresNoMoney]

Arizona's like GA, I'm afraid is a big state we'll have to let go of.

I disagree. Arizona is one of the states we most need to focus on, as well as Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico.

[TheresNoMoney]

BTW, it's hilarious that Dean is wasting money in Mississippi.

Democrats don't expect to win Mississippi anytime soon. It's about laying the groundwork.

Why is your avatar Democratic?

[TheresNoMoney]

I should certainly think so- you seem to believe that Colorado will somehow become a Democratic stronghold overnight by 2008.

No, just more competitive, a true swing-state.

[Rob]

Democrats don't expect to win Mississippi anytime soon. It's about laying the groundwork.

Laying the groundwork for what- losing whites by "only" 75-25?

Why is your avatar Democratic?

Because I had a Democratic avatar for months before (longer than I've ever had a green one), and I like it better.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think Colorado should be a big priority, certainly way ahead of Arizona.

I should certainly think so- you seem to believe that Colorado will somehow become a Democratic stronghold overnight by 2008.

1972:


1976:

[TheresNoMoney]

Laying the groundwork for what- losing whites by "only" 75-25?

It's a start! Plus there's a very large black population in that state.

[Rob]

That was a fluke, Jfern- I assume you're aware that Jimmy Carter was the nominee in 1976, and that Georgia is normally a Republican stronghold.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

That was a fluke, Jfern- I assume you're aware that Jimmy Carter was the nominee in 1976, and that Georgia is normally a Republican stronghold.

I'm aware of that. If you want another large shift try 1928 to 1932 in Kansas. The Republican VP candidate was still from there in 1932.

[Rob]

I should certainly think so- you seem to believe that Colorado will somehow become a Democratic stronghold overnight by 2008.

No, just more competitive, a true swing-state.

That's certainly possible, but Opebo has Colorado going for the Democrat in almost every imaginable scenario.

[Rob]

I'm aware of that. If you want another large shift try 1928 to 1932 in Kansas. The Republican VP candidate was still from there in 1932.

Another fluke, caused by the Great Depression.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It's not just 4 states.

Already done:

   1. Wyoming
   2. Nevada
   3. Nebraska
   4. Mississippi
   5. Kansas
   6. Missouri
   7. North Dakota
   8. North Carolina
   9. West Virginia

Next on the list:

    * South Dakota
    * Maryland
    * Arkansas
    * Colorado

[The Vorlon]

It's not just 4 states.

Already done:

   1. Wyoming
   2. Nevada
   3. Nebraska
   4. Mississippi
   5. Kansas
   6. Missouri
   7. North Dakota
   8. North Carolina
   9. West Virginia

Next on the list:

    * South Dakota
    * Maryland
    * Arkansas
    * Colorado

Ok... I'll bite.....

Wyoming.....?!?

[Smash255]

I should certainly think so- you seem to believe that Colorado will somehow become a Democratic stronghold overnight by 2008.

No, just more competitive, a true swing-state.

That's certainly possible, but Opebo has Colorado going for the Democrat in almost every imaginable scenario.

Colorado has been shifting leftward.  In 2004 it was only 2 points more GOP than the Natl average.  It will probably move even closer to the Natl average perhaps even on the Dem side of  the Natl average.  So if you expect lets say a 1-2 point Dem victory in PV it would be reasonable to expect CO to be Dem

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It's not just 4 states.

Already done:

   1. Wyoming
   2. Nevada
   3. Nebraska
   4. Mississippi
   5. Kansas
   6. Missouri
   7. North Dakota
   8. North Carolina
   9. West Virginia

Next on the list:

    * South Dakota
    * Maryland
    * Arkansas
    * Colorado

Ok... I'll bite.....

Wyoming.....?!?

While it's usually very solidly Republican, it has a  popular Democratic governor

[Gabu]

Well, Dean's actions are obviously a gamble, and I feel he likely knows that.  It remains to be seen whether it pays off or is just a giant waste of money, but I get the sense that Dean's game plan is to try something completely different instead of just retaining the status quo in the Democratic Party of slowly attempting to hack away at the swing states in a desperate attempt to squeeze more Democratic support out of them.  Personally, I welcome the idea, if only because it's something new, as the Democratic Party seriously needs something new.  America today is not hardcore Republican, but the odds are definitely tilted against the Democratic Party unless they do things to seriously shake things up in the country.

Is this a good idea?  I have no idea.  Do I like the fact that Dean is trying it out, regardless?  Yes.  We'll see what happens.  If nothing else, Dean might be able to give some sense of hope back to the Democratic Party, which can only be a good thing, even if his money does turn out to be wasted on these specific endeavors.  Belief that you can do something is the first step towards actually doing it, and a lack of belief instantly kills any chance you ever had.  I get the sense that Dean's idea may be not to singlehandedly solve all of the Democratic Party's problems, but to motivate other members of the Democratic Party to do their part as well, even those in dark red states who have all but completely lost hope of ever being relevant.

[TeePee4Prez]

Dems also need to hold down the forts in the following:

Wisconsin-  Why is this state known for Progressivism such a battleground?

Minnesota-  see above

Michigan-  I don't see many shifts, but a McCain would easily win

Pennsylvania-  see Michigan, but I may also add a drastic GOP shift out in western PA.  I hope the Dem chairs in eastern PA get their acts together and pick a good Dem as Philly mayor in 2007.  Bad Dem press has hurt us.

New Jersey-  Dark horse for the GOP.  Philly factors have spillover effect in South Jeresy as well.  A libertarian GOP shift in policy could make this state competitive and right now the Dems are viewed as corrupt here.

[Smash255]

Dems also need to hold down the forts in the following:

Wisconsin-  Why is this state known for Progressivism such a battleground?

Minnesota-  see above

Michigan-  I don't see many shifts, but a McCain would easily win

Pennsylvania-  see Michigan, but I may also add a drastic GOP shift out in western PA.  I hope the Dem chairs in eastern PA get their acts together and pick a good Dem as Philly mayor in 2007.  Bad Dem press has hurt us.

New Jersey-  Dark horse for the GOP.  Philly factors have spillover effect in South Jeresy as well.  A libertarian GOP shift in policy could make this state competitive and right now the Dems are viewed as corrupt here.

Wisconisn has some conservative areas, but the state is pretty much staying where it is

Minnesota See Wisconsin.  If Dems lose here, we already lost the election

Michagin-  See above

Pennsylvania-  Western PA going more Republican, Philly suburbs becoming more Dem, tradeeoff = very little movement (just different county totals)

NJ-  if Dems lose here well then we are in big trouble.  (Unless Rudy somehow gets the GOP nomination & Moore is running as an Indpendent.  Too socially liberal to go GOP.  The only real chance is Rudy & no way he gets past the nomination.   

[jimrtex]

Howard Dean has poured extra cash into

Mississippi
North Carolina
Missouri
Nevada

How much $$$?   How much the DNC typically distribute to states?

[MaC]

most likely southern:Arkansas or Georgia
most likely non-southern: Florida, Ohio, Nevada.

Take into consideration Georgia, Florida and Ohio are the only ones with enough votes that it would be worth the effort.

[tarheel-leftist85]

Actually, AR's nice b/c you get more bang for your buck.  Fewer raw votes to change (~51,000+50% new voters), cheaper commercial market, for 6 (disproportionately large, though that's another argument) EV's.  Nevada (~10,000+50% new voters), Iowa (7,000+50% new voters), and New Mexico (~3,000+50% new voters) are similar.  I guess FL would be my first big target, but I wouldn't piddle away and throw resources there sporadically as socially liberal John Kerry did b/c he was foolishly spending time in a socially conservative state.

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

He has poured more money into those states, but has brought in far less money than the Republicans

Republicans always outraise the Democrats because they are the party of big business and corporate giveaways.

The stupidity of this comment is hilarious.

[minionofmidas]

He has poured more money into those states, but has brought in far less money than the Republicans

Republicans always outraise the Democrats because they are the party of big business and corporate giveaways.

The stupidity of this comment is hilarious.

They are the more blatant one of America's two parties of big business and corporate giveaways.

That better, States?

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

He has poured more money into those states, but has brought in far less money than the Republicans

Republicans always outraise the Democrats because they are the party of big business and corporate giveaways.

The stupidity of this comment is hilarious.

They are the more blatant one of America's two parties of big business and corporate giveaways.

That better, States?

Ok, that's better. Anyone who says that big business has no impact on the DNC is either naive, a liar or both.

[minionofmidas]

He has poured more money into those states, but has brought in far less money than the Republicans

Republicans always outraise the Democrats because they are the party of big business and corporate giveaways.

The stupidity of this comment is hilarious.

They are the more blatant one of America's two parties of big business and corporate giveaways.

That better, States?

Ok, that's better. Anyone who says that big business has no impact on the DNC is either naive, a liar or both.

As for Scoonie, "naive" applies.

[MODU]

He has poured more money into those states, but has brought in far less money than the Republicans

Republicans always outraise the Democrats because they are the party of big business and corporate giveaways.

The stupidity of this comment is hilarious.

They are the more blatant one of America's two parties of big business and corporate giveaways.

That better, States?

Ok, that's better. Anyone who says that big business has no impact on the DNC is either naive, a liar or both.

And let's not forget the impact that the unions, civil liberty groups, et al all have on the DNC's books too.  hehehe