Which Gore States Would Kerry Lose?

[Nation]

That's pushing it, zork. Even if Kerry does get the nomination, the election is a ways away, and broad statements like "he'll lose all these states because he's a liberal yankee" are rather unreliable, from what I've seen at least.

[© tweed]

Kerry will petty much lose all the battleground states Gore won.  He is, and will be perceived, as a Northeast Liberal Senator.  
So Kerry loses MN, IA, WI, NM, OR.  He dosen't win NH or WV, FL, or AZ.

I think he might be able to sway WV.  It's not out of reach.

He may be able to hold on to Minnesota...

[Dave from Michigan]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

true but the republicans have a good chance it's still a swing state.

[jacob_101]

Minnesota hasn't voted for a Republican President in something like 40 years, but I guess it could happen.....Kerry would probably lose Iowa and Wisconsin, New Mexico...and I don't think the west coast is for sure going Democratic.

[StevenNick]

Because Kerry was considered dead all these last few months, analysts and pundits haven't been talking about how liberal Kerry really is.  The only reason he appears to be a centrist is because Dean has campaigned to Kerry's left.  Kerry voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, for cutting defense and intelligence spending, for raising taxes, and against the partial birth abortion ban among a number of other liberal votes.  Although Kerry isn't the complete political ameteur that Dean is, he'll only fair slightly better than Dean in a general election matchup with Bush.

In a Bush-Kerry race I think Bush would pick up the following Gore states:

Washington
Oregon
California
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Michigan
Illinois
Iowa
New Mexico
Pennsylvania
Maine
and perhaps more

[Filuwaúrdjan]

A few things to remember about West Virginia.

1. Bush did not win WV because of gun control. The main reason seems to have been his then support for steel tariffs. One of his best areas of WV was the Northern Panhandle (ie; Wheeling) and that's not happening this year.

2. The WVGOP is very weak. It has no strong organisation outside the Eastern Panhandle and surrounding area.

3. The Dems will hold the Governer's chair:
They will probably run WVSOS Joe Manchin, who is very popular.

4. The Dems will hold both Senate seats when they become vacant (which will be quite a while. Can you see Byrd retiring from the Senate?) The WVGOP does not have many viable candidates, the WVDP has plenty.

5. If the Dems run someone who sounds fairly populist they should pick WV up.
Class War sells in WV.

[Gustaf]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

true but the republicans have a good chance it's still a swing state.

Bush got 46% in Michigan, so it isn't out of reach, it wouldn't take that big a swing to make it go GOP. Still, if the election is competitive, the Dems should be able to keep Michigan. Polls seem to indicate that, despite Bush huge lead in national polls, Michigan is still lean Dem.

[Dave from Michigan]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

these issues could really hurt him against Bush.

[StevenNick]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

true but the republicans have a good chance it's still a swing state.

Bush got 46% in Michigan, so it isn't out of reach, it wouldn't take that big a swing to make it go GOP. Still, if the election is competitive, the Dems should be able to keep Michigan. Polls seem to indicate that, despite Bush huge lead in national polls, Michigan is still lean Dem.

The polls aren't going to start meaning a thing until there is at least a presumptive democratic nominee and Bush starts campaigning.  When the Bush campaign starts spending some of its vast war chest on TV spots and the like its going to be a whole different ball game.  If Bush is running ahead of various democrats now, wait until he starts his campaign.

[Gustaf]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

true but the republicans have a good chance it's still a swing state.

Bush got 46% in Michigan, so it isn't out of reach, it wouldn't take that big a swing to make it go GOP. Still, if the election is competitive, the Dems should be able to keep Michigan. Polls seem to indicate that, despite Bush huge lead in national polls, Michigan is still lean Dem.

The polls aren't going to start meaning a thing until there is at least a presumptive democratic nominee and Bush starts campaigning.  When the Bush campaign starts spending some of its vast war chest on TV spots and the like its going to be a whole different ball game.  If Bush is running ahead of various democrats now, wait until he starts his campaign.

On the other hand, the undecideds tend to break against an incumbant, and a lot have been going Bush' way recently, that could change. And when the Dems unite behind one nominee and have their convention it will boost that candidate.

[John]

kerry will lose Iowa, Mi, Minnnesto, Iowa, PA, Washigton & Oreagon maybe

[© tweed]

kerry will lose Iowa, Mi, Minnnesto, Iowa, PA, Washigton & Oreagon maybe

Spelling is getting better...but why mix in a state abbreviation (MI) with other fully spelled state names (Iowa, etc.)

Kerry would probably hold onto Minnesota and Michigan by the skin of his teeth.

[agcatter]

Kerry indeed would have the edge in Minn and Mich.  His hardest defense of a Gore state would be Pa. I believe.  That looks 50 - 50 to me.  He could solidify that state by putting Gov Rundell (sp?) on the ticket.  It would be a dogfight in Iowa.  Oregon and Wisconsin I believe would lean ever so slightly to Kerry simply because I'm factoring in the Nader vote.

Bush needs to hold Ohio, Nevada, and Arizona which I think he can.

Fact is, I don't see either side making much headway in the other's territory.  This culture divide is so entrenched that neither side is going to win without a sweat.  Might have been the case with a Dean nomination, but that isn't going to happen now.  We are looking at a VERY close election no matter what any of the partisans try to tell you.  Of course I'm very partisan myself (as you all very well know).  However, i'm also very much a realist.  The country is split down the middle.

[7,052,770]

Kerry should hold on to Michigan.
Iowa, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Oregon, and New Mexico could all go to the GOP, but he should be able to hold on to something.
If Edwards is his VP, though, that puts Tennessee, Arkansas, and Louisiana into play.
West Virginia, Ohio, and Florida can also be in play.
So even if he loses some states, he can gain some otheres.

[agcatter]

Florida currently looks pretty good for Bush.

[Wakie]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040124/pl_afp/us_vote_poll_040124215425

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I think that the most vunerable Gore state is Wisconsin, Clinton never cleared 50% there and Nader-LaDuke was not a factor there either.

I don't think that America is split down the middle, I think that the GOP will always have about 33% solid support (although where this is is subject to sudden changes) and the Dems 33% (ditto) with 33% as habitual vote splitters.

[Gustaf]

Kerry indeed would have the edge in Minn and Mich.  His hardest defense of a Gore state would be Pa. I believe.  That looks 50 - 50 to me.  He could solidify that state by putting Gov Rundell (sp?) on the ticket.  It would be a dogfight in Iowa.  Oregon and Wisconsin I believe would lean ever so slightly to Kerry simply because I'm factoring in the Nader vote.

Bush needs to hold Ohio, Nevada, and Arizona which I think he can.

Fact is, I don't see either side making much headway in the other's territory.  This culture divide is so entrenched that neither side is going to win without a sweat.  Might have been the case with a Dean nomination, but that isn't going to happen now.  We are looking at a VERY close election no matter what any of the partisans try to tell you.  Of course I'm very partisan myself (as you all very well know).  However, i'm also very much a realist.  The country is split down the middle.

That's interesting, as it is always hard to distinguish what one wants to happen, from what is likely to happen.

Myself, I think that Bush will pick up some support from the last election, but he might lose some as well. I will stick by my earler prediction:

Kerry is a mainstream Democrat (not mainstream in America, but in the party), so he's a bit of a generic Democrat. Bush has incumbency, war leader and 9/11 going for him, economy still probably going against him, and it will be enough to garner a win. He also has more money. Kerry will lose honourably in the end, but will definitely break 200 EVs. A Newsweek poll shows Kerry leading Bush in a head-to-head matchup, btw.

How often does money lose in the US, just curious, since I think it matters more here than in Sweden.