Dean: Democrats Could Take the West (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 01, 2024, 01:24:59 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Dean: Democrats Could Take the West (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Dean: Democrats Could Take the West  (Read 2618 times)
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,915


« on: June 06, 2005, 05:16:00 PM »
« edited: June 06, 2005, 05:17:32 PM by thefactor »

AZ. NV, NM, and COLO. That's the best the Dems can hope for any time soon (plus the coast).


And lose Wisconsin and probably Minnesota in the process, plus they would basically be conceding Ohio and Iowa to the Republicans.

granted, but aren't these the states that are losing population and electoral votes? 

I added Michigan and PA too, as you can see.  I see it as a decent long term strategy, but we are talking very long term before those states out-wiegh the ones they would be losing, and the Dean would be gone in 8 years if they kept losing, anyway, thus taking them back to the tried and true.  the only thing they would acchomplish is losing credability with voters in the states I mentioned.  Let's face it, both parties are in a box right now.  Its just that the Democrats box is a bit smaller.

Exactly. All those states together have 29 electoral votes, which is just 2 more than Florida. According to that logic, the state of Florida should have equal weight to the entire Western region.

Nevertheless, going for the West is important for symbolic as much as direct reasons, and arguably offers the Democrats the best chance to exploit that fact that the GOP base has moved from the sunbelt to the bible belt.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,915


« Reply #1 on: June 09, 2005, 05:10:58 PM »

Every state where Bush got 55% or over, should not be touched by the Dems. Its a waste of money.

That is possibly the wisest thing you've ever posted. :-)

I would qualify that when a nominee is named.  If Bayh is the nominee, by all means, spend money in IN.

Good thing the Democrats gave up on NH, which went 62.49% for George HW Bush (9.12 points better than his national average).

Shira has it right, on this one.  You don't pour money, at this point, into Utah, hoping that in 2008, Utah might be competive.  It is a good idea to try tp use "party building" money in close states, like OH, or CO, NM, NV in the west.  Spending money now in UT or WY might not be money well spent.

We're all assuming now that the political map has "solidified" a lot more from the landslide years of 1932-1988.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.023 seconds with 12 queries.