Democrats Seem to be Targeting 6 States

[Sibboleth]

I would have thought that Vermont's old ways would have been kinda obvious...
Vermont's old ways=GOP

On the second question, I don't know who the Dem nominee is yet, etc.

[TheOldLine]

Yes the old ways are obvious, but I am simply shocked to think that someone might seriously consider Vermont to be turning Republican.

Gore-Nader combined for a 16%+ win on Bush.     I'd give even money on Vermont voting for Kucinich over Bush.

TheOldLine

[Sibboleth]

Why?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Gore publically distanced himself from Clinton and refused to have anything to do with him in the campaign, costing him a state he thought he would win easily.
He was not seen as Clinton's VP, had he been he would have won AR and would be sitting in the White House now.

NH seems to have swung to the right recently, and Vermont may be returning to it's old ways now that Dean is over the hill.

I would like to know your reasons for thinking Ark is in play in a 50/50 2004 election?  It has voted in unison with the rest of the South for decades – the only exception being Clinton who was governor of the state.  Ark is an extremely Southern state and closely resembles East Texas and Northern LA.

Ark was 6% above the Bush’s national average in 2000.  That is likely to jump to 10% above national average in 2004.

Check out 1988 if you want to get an idea of how a Mass Liberal is going to be greeted by Ark.  And Ark has changed very little since 88.

If Bush loses the national popular vote by 10% in 2004, he’ll still be competitive in Ark.

The Dems best bet is in OH, WV, AZ, NH, FL.

But I do very much hope Kerry wastes a lot of money and time in Ark.

[TheOldLine]

I think that our discussion here gets to heart of a post I made a few days ago, in response to someone who has posted a "trend map" of State trends in the last four Presidential elections.   Presumably the last four were selected because the author of the map correctly determined that no trends could be determined from the Mondale-Ferraro debacle of 1984.  

I objected to this analysis, however, as ignoring the underlying trends that affect State voting patterns: such as issues, demographics, and favorite-sons.

Thus, the fact that Vermont voted for Reagan and Nixon isn't so important to me as much as noting that electoral dynamics have changed a lot since Reagan and Nixon.   I'm interested in the trend that underlies the result.

In this case, I look at Vermont voters and see voters that are strongly pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, fairly areligious (and almost completely non-evangelical), and more anti-war than the country as a whole.    Moreover, I see voters that consistently elect a *Socialist* to Congress as being completely unimpressed by the modern-day Republican message of small government, lower taxes, and smaller government.  

TheOldLine

[opebo]

the Dem's strategy for winning states that President Bush won in 2000 seems to be focused on these 6:

New Hampshire (4)
West Virginia (5)
Ohio (20)
Florida (27)
Arizona (10)
Nevada (5)

Even though the margin of victory was smaller in Tennessee and Missouri than a few of these 6 states, most conceded that Tennessee was a lot closer because of the Clinton legacy and Gore being from Tennessee (similar to what one poster told me yesterday in another thread), and that Missouri has swung more right since 2000 especially given how unpopular Governor Holden is now.

The thing I like best about this analysis is the recognition that TN and MO are strong Republican.  

As for the six - NH doesn't worry me a bit, and I think WV was no fluke - it will go R. again.  Ohio is the key but I really don't think steel tarrifs and all that sort of left-wing economic stuff is going to work there.  Union influence is fairly localized and declining in OH.  I'm not really worried about Florida, even with Richardson on the ticket - he's from too far away.  To be honest I don't know a lot about the demographic changes everyone keeps referring to in NV and AZ, but these are traditionally quite Republican states, and in general these new immigrants will probably be less likely to vote than the longer term residents.  

But I think the Dems should be a lot more worried about losing states - MN, IA, and WI are much more likely to go Bush than AZ and NV are to go for Kerry.  I think someone above already said that.  But I also think Pennsylvania is a real possibility for Bush.  Its doing better economically than OH.  

[Sibboleth]

Some fact's about Vermont.

Bernie Sanders is re-elected every 2 years, because he is an excellent constituancy Representative, not because he is a Socialist.
Like plenty of rural areas, Vermont habitually vote splits.

The Governer of VT is a Republican, as is the State House.

One of it's Senator's is a Democrat, the other is an Independent, who was elected as a Republican.

[TheOldLine]

I think that it is a real mistake to project votes for Presidential electors based on local State races.   After all, there is not a single one-party State in the United States.   Heck, Wyoming has a Democratic governor and the Tom Daschle was elected in South Dakota, but believe me Wyoming and South Dakota are as solidly Republican in Presidential races as it gets.

I am sure that Vermont does elect Republicans - but these Republicans are surely far to the left of the sort of Republicans that would ever be a Presidential nominee for the Republican Party.  

Bernie Sanders is no doubt an excellent constituency representative - he has to be to keep getting elected as a Socialist - but he still had to get elected once in the first place, and that tells you a lot.   At any rate, all that is besides the point - I am sure that you would agree that Vermonters in general are far more supportive of big government spending programs and progressive taxation than are the residents of just about any other State.   Likewise, they are strongly pro-abortion, fairly pro-gay-marriage, and generally don't expect a lot of religiosity from their office-holders.  

For all those reasons they are particularly unlikely to respond to George W. Bush's message.

TheOldLine

[Gustaf]

most likely during the primary North Dakota is almost certain to go republican in the general election.


Florida will go republican Bush 51% to Kerry 47%

Hehe..ALMOST certain? I'd say certain, personally...

[Gustaf]

the Dem's strategy for winning states that President Bush won in 2000 seems to be focused on these 6:

New Hampshire (4)
West Virginia (5)
Ohio (20)
Florida (27)
Arizona (10)
Nevada (5)

Even though the margin of victory was smaller in Tennessee and Missouri than a few of these 6 states, most conceded that Tennessee was a lot closer because of the Clinton legacy and Gore being from Tennessee (similar to what one poster told me yesterday in another thread), and that Missouri has swung more right since 2000 especially given how unpopular Governor Holden is now.

The thing I like best about this analysis is the recognition that TN and MO are strong Republican.  

As for the six - NH doesn't worry me a bit, and I think WV was no fluke - it will go R. again.  Ohio is the key but I really don't think steel tarrifs and all that sort of left-wing economic stuff is going to work there.  Union influence is fairly localized and declining in OH.  I'm not really worried about Florida, even with Richardson on the ticket - he's from too far away.  To be honest I don't know a lot about the demographic changes everyone keeps referring to in NV and AZ, but these are traditionally quite Republican states, and in general these new immigrants will probably be less likely to vote than the longer term residents.  

But I think the Dems should be a lot more worried about losing states - MN, IA, and WI are much more likely to go Bush than AZ and NV are to go for Kerry.  I think someone above already said that.  But I also think Pennsylvania is a real possibility for Bush.  Its doing better economically than OH.  

It isn't right to say that AZ and NV are Republican states, they're lean Republican only. Nevada is a typical swing state that almost always vote Dem when the rest of the country does: 1948, 1960, 1964, 1992, 1996, with the only exception being the Carter win in 1976, but that was different for a lot of reasons. When Kennedy won, NV was his only Western state. You're just tricked by the fact that the Republicans have won a lot of elections... AZ is more Republican, but still voted Dem in 1948 and 1996, 2 out of the 6 Dem wins since WWII (and that's partly b/c it was Goldwater's home state in 1964, otherwise it would have voted Dem as well).

[Sibboleth]

Burlington is left wing (and is a stronghold of the Progressive Party) and Central VT leans Dem nowadays, but the rest of the state is Yankee Republican (like NH).
VT as a whole is not left wing, but is certainly exceedingly bloody minded and if Dean isn't on the ticket will be very hard to predict.

[TheOldLine]

Well, I'll guess that we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.   I see that you are from the UK, and it is great to have some international perspective in this forums.... but I really do think that you should investigate deeper into whether or not Vermont will really be as hard to predict as you might think.

I can't help but wonder if your opinions might be colored by the fact that the two major political parties in the UK, Labour and Conservatives, do not often switch constituencies the way that US Major Parties have done.

Just 50 years ago, Vermont and the rest of New England formed the base of a Republican Party that was based upon Notheastern elites, traders, and bankers, as well as the dying embers of the abolitionist movement.   The Democrats, meanwhile, were based on Southern populism going all the way back to Andrew Jackson, as well as anti-desegregation backlash against Reconstruction coupled with Midwestern Progressivism fueled by Scandinavian immigrants and backlash against some of the abuses of the Industrial Revolution.  

Today, the opposite is true.   The heart of the Republican Party has evolved out of the anti-government, "leave me alone", semi-libertarian movement of the American West, which has evolved to embrace the dying embers of the "states-rights" movement in the South, and evangelical religous conservatism.    The Democrats, meanwhile, are firmly ensconced in the Northeast, and more generally in the impovershed minorities of our inner cities and in the new economy workers of upscale city districts and affluent suburbs surrounding our most dynamic cities.  

The punch line to all of this is that the Republicans and Democrats have traded geographical places, and believe me, Vermont is now one of the most reliably Democratic States in the Union.

TheOldLine

[Gustaf]

Well, I'll guess that we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.   I see that you are from the UK, and it is great to have some international perspective in this forums.... but I really do think that you should investigate deeper into whether or not Vermont will really be as hard to predict as you might think.

I can't help but wonder if your opinions might be colored by the fact that the two major political parties in the UK, Labour and Conservatives, do not often switch constituencies the way that US Major Parties have done.

Just 50 years ago, Vermont and the rest of New England formed the base of a Republican Party that was based upon Notheastern elites, traders, and bankers, as well as the dying embers of the abolitionist movement.   The Democrats, meanwhile, were based on Southern populism going all the way back to Andrew Jackson, as well as anti-desegregation backlash against Reconstruction coupled with Midwestern Progressivism fueled by Scandinavian immigrants and backlash against some of the abuses of the Industrial Revolution.  

Today, the opposite is true.   The heart of the Republican Party has evolved out of the anti-government, "leave me alone", semi-libertarian movement of the American West, which has evolved to embrace the dying embers of the "states-rights" movement in the South, and evangelical religous conservatism.    The Democrats, meanwhile, are firmly ensconced in the Northeast, and more generally in the impovershed minorities of our inner cities and in the new economy workers of upscale city districts and affluent suburbs surrounding our most dynamic cities.  

The punch line to all of this is that the Republicans and Democrats have traded geographical places, and believe me, Vermont is now one of the most reliably Democratic States in the Union.

TheOldLine

I'd say "fora", but that's a minor point, lol.

RP's gonna get mad with you for suggesting that he doesn't know enough being a foreigner, the man knows everything...I think he has an obsession with not calling states for anyone, I don't think that he thinks that Vermont will go Rep, he just likes to point out that it could.  

[bejkuy]

I believe Arizona will be a solid GOP state in 2004.

While Bush narrowly won there in 2000, I think a lot of that had to do with the EXTREMELY harsh primary involving their favorite son John McCain and the future president.  

Also, McCain didnt' exactly pull out the stops to get Bush elected once the primary was over.

Arizona is growing fast and not all the new faces are minorities.  Many are very conservative whites from  southern Californian.  

Movers and shakers tend to be Republicans.  

AZ-solidly GOP in 2004.

[mossy]

I believe Arizona will be a solid GOP state in 2004.

While Bush narrowly won there in 2000, I think a lot of that had to do with the EXTREMELY harsh primary involving their favorite son John McCain and the future president.  

Also, McCain didnt' exactly pull out the stops to get Bush elected once the primary was over.

Arizona is growing fast and not all the new faces are minorities.  Many are very conservative whites from  southern Californian.  

Movers and shakers tend to be Republicans.  

AZ-solidly GOP in 2004.

It's exactly the Rove treatment McCain got 2000 primary that I think that will impact AZ--he was my choice, I know, what did he win? 7 primaries? But he went from a liked guy, to a respected  and liked guy this past 4 years, for his bucking the GOP party stand--anti-Tob. ind., several other issues that were populist.

My predictions are  based on Clark/Bush race, and AZ in MHO would defeat Bush there--and possibly Kerry, Dean as well.  The Californians moving there, I think would be largely Dems.   But I think AZ will be a ABB state.

A word about Oregon:  I've talked to two people in the last year that were pro-Bush.  High unemployment, churches not the huge ones as you see in the south, but there are cons. Christians here.  My county usually goes GOP, I think because of the traditional practice of limited spending---in view of that not being the case here, I'm wondering what will happen this time.  There was a ton of Bush/Cheney bumperstickers here in 2000.

[opebo]

I believe Arizona will be a solid GOP state in 2004.

While Bush narrowly won there in 2000, I think a lot of that had to do with the EXTREMELY harsh primary involving their favorite son John McCain and the future president.  

Also, McCain didnt' exactly pull out the stops to get Bush elected once the primary was over.

Arizona is growing fast and not all the new faces are minorities.  Many are very conservative whites from  southern Californian.  

Movers and shakers tend to be Republicans.  

AZ-solidly GOP in 2004.

It's exactly the Rove treatment McCain got 2000 primary that I think that will impact AZ--he was my choice, I know, what did he win? 7 primaries? But he went from a liked guy, to a respected  and liked guy this past 4 years, for his bucking the GOP party stand--anti-Tob. ind., several other issues that were populist.

My predictions are  based on Clark/Bush race, and AZ in MHO would defeat Bush there--and possibly Kerry, Dean as well.  The Californians moving there, I think would be largely Dems.   But I think AZ will be a ABB state.

A word about Oregon:  I've talked to two people in the last year that were pro-Bush.  High unemployment, churches not the huge ones as you see in the south, but there are cons. Christians here.  My county usually goes GOP, I think because of the traditional practice of limited spending---in view of that not being the case here, I'm wondering what will happen this time.  There was a ton of Bush/Cheney bumperstickers here in 2000.

I really find it hard to believe that the sort of Californians who flee to Arizona and Nevada are mostly Democrats.  The very act of fleeing high-tax, crime-ridden, ultra-liberal California is a sort of conservative 'voting with your pocketbook' or 'voting with your feet'.  There is a sizable minority of Republicans in CA, and they're quite conservative.  I think they're a lot more likely to want to move to friendlier confines such as AZ and NV than the liberals who no doubt feel quite comfortable in CA.

[Vasall des Midas]

I believe Arizona will be a solid GOP state in 2004.

While Bush narrowly won there in 2000, I think a lot of that had to do with the EXTREMELY harsh primary involving their favorite son John McCain and the future president.  

Also, McCain didnt' exactly pull out the stops to get Bush elected once the primary was over.

Arizona is growing fast and not all the new faces are minorities.  Many are very conservative whites from  southern Californian.  

Movers and shakers tend to be Republicans.  

AZ-solidly GOP in 2004.

It's exactly the Rove treatment McCain got 2000 primary that I think that will impact AZ--he was my choice, I know, what did he win? 7 primaries? But he went from a liked guy, to a respected  and liked guy this past 4 years, for his bucking the GOP party stand--anti-Tob. ind., several other issues that were populist.

My predictions are  based on Clark/Bush race, and AZ in MHO would defeat Bush there--and possibly Kerry, Dean as well.  The Californians moving there, I think would be largely Dems.   But I think AZ will be a ABB state.

A word about Oregon:  I've talked to two people in the last year that were pro-Bush.  High unemployment, churches not the huge ones as you see in the south, but there are cons. Christians here.  My county usually goes GOP, I think because of the traditional practice of limited spending---in view of that not being the case here, I'm wondering what will happen this time.  There was a ton of Bush/Cheney bumperstickers here in 2000.

I really find it hard to believe that the sort of Californians who flee to Arizona and Nevada are mostly Democrats.  The very act of fleeing high-tax, crime-ridden, ultra-liberal California is a sort of conservative 'voting with your pocketbook' or 'voting with your feet'.  There is a sizable minority of Republicans in CA, and they're quite conservative.  I think they're a lot more likely to want to move to friendlier confines such as AZ and NV than the liberals who no doubt feel quite comfortable in CA.

Sorry, but you both are partly right. Definitely most of AZ's Californian population influx is white, middle class and should be at least leaning Republican. Nonetheless, the state has been trending Dem in the last Decade or so and seems to be continuing to do so: part of it due to Hispanics and Indians finally getting themselves to the polling booth. Also, not all the white immigrants come for opebo's reasons and not all of them come from Calif.
In Nevada, the Dem. trend is even more visible. The state's Hispanic population is really exploding. It's also got more Blacks than AZ (percentagewise)
I'm not sure about Arizona-it's possible-, but Nevada definitely will be close if the Dems win or come close to it. Of course if Bush wins by, say 5-8 points, which is pretty much the Maximum I'd give him, they'll both be his.

[TheOldLine]

My best guess is that Bush will win Arizona.   After all, let's keep in mind that in the modern era every incumbent President without a serious primary challenge and with a decent economy has won re-election pretty handily.  

If somehow Kerry can keep it close - and I have serious doubts about this (although Clark is even worse in my estimation) then the influx of Hispanics in Arizona should make it competitive, but AZ probably won't be a true toss-up until 2008 or 2012.

As for Oregon, Oregon is tricky because its population is sooooo concentrated in the Portland area.   Thus, if you travel throughout almost the entire State of Oregon it can appear like total Bush-Cheney country.   Unfortunately, all that geographic area carries relatively little voting weight compared to the Portland Metro Area.

TheOldLine

[Sibboleth]

It would only take a 4.9% swing for Bush to pick VT up.
I'm not saying he will, what I am saying is that if turnout is low in Burlington, The Dems might be in trouble in VT.

Most states could go either way... this isn't to say will but that they might.

[Gustaf]

My best guess is that Bush will win Arizona.   After all, let's keep in mind that in the modern era every incumbent President without a serious primary challenge and with a decent economy has won re-election pretty handily.  

If somehow Kerry can keep it close - and I have serious doubts about this (although Clark is even worse in my estimation) then the influx of Hispanics in Arizona should make it competitive, but AZ probably won't be a true toss-up until 2008 or 2012.

As for Oregon, Oregon is tricky because its population is sooooo concentrated in the Portland area.   Thus, if you travel throughout almost the entire State of Oregon it can appear like total Bush-Cheney country.   Unfortunately, all that geographic area carries relatively little voting weight compared to the Portland Metro Area.

TheOldLine

"Carry voting weight"...lol, you mean that they aren't that many, right?

[Mort from NewYawk]

'
Sorry, but you both are partly right. Definitely most of AZ's Californian population influx is white, middle class and should be at least leaning Republican. Nonetheless, the state has been trending Dem in the last Decade or so and seems to be continuing to do so: part of it due to Hispanics and Indians finally getting themselves to the polling booth. Also, not all the white immigrants come for opebo's reasons and not all of them come from Calif.
In Nevada, the Dem. trend is even more visible. The state's Hispanic population is really exploding. It's also got more Blacks than AZ (percentagewise)
I'm not sure about Arizona-it's possible-, but Nevada definitely will be close if the Dems win or come close to it. Of course if Bush wins by, say 5-8 points, which is pretty much the Maximum I'd give him, they'll both be his.

There is a larger influx into the Southwest from the Northeast as well - Scottsdale in AZ and Henderson in NV are popular destinations - although not all of these Northeasterners are Democrats, they will still tend to dilute the Republican strength of these cities.

[opebo]

'
Sorry, but you both are partly right. Definitely most of AZ's Californian population influx is white, middle class and should be at least leaning Republican. Nonetheless, the state has been trending Dem in the last Decade or so and seems to be continuing to do so: part of it due to Hispanics and Indians finally getting themselves to the polling booth. Also, not all the white immigrants come for opebo's reasons and not all of them come from Calif.
In Nevada, the Dem. trend is even more visible. The state's Hispanic population is really exploding. It's also got more Blacks than AZ (percentagewise)
I'm not sure about Arizona-it's possible-, but Nevada definitely will be close if the Dems win or come close to it. Of course if Bush wins by, say 5-8 points, which is pretty much the Maximum I'd give him, they'll both be his.

There is a larger influx into the Southwest from the Northeast as well - Scottsdale in AZ and Henderson in NV are popular destinations - although not all of these Northeasterners are Democrats, they will still tend to dilute the Republican strength of these cities.

You know this debate about the political leanings of immigrants to AZ reminds me of suburbs in general.  I come from a county in Missouri that was Democrat in a sort of 'southern democrat' way (though MO is not the south!).  Over the last 15-20 years it has grown prodigiously as have other counties surrounding the hollow core that is St. Louis city and county.  In all cases this has caused a shift to the Republicans in these new suburban counties.

I find it frustrating to think that those who flee liberal, highly-taxed, and therefore moribund locales like inner cities, the Northeast, or California, would bring their ill-conceived political notions along with them - the very notions that ruined their previous stomping grounds!  Somehow I suspect that most escapees are more rational than this.

[bejkuy]

<<<As for Oregon, Oregon is tricky because its population is sooooo concentrated in the Portland area.  Thus, if you travel throughout almost the entire State of Oregon it can appear like total Bush-Cheney country.  Unfortunately, all that geographic area carries relatively little voting weight compared to the Portland Metro Area.>>>

 Those of us outside the portland area aren't thrilled about it either!

If you took the Portland metro area out of Oregon, we'd be another Idaho in size and voting patterns.

[Vasall des Midas]

Almost.
You'd have the same number of EVs, you'd be clearly majority Republican, but not by Idaho margins (unless we assume that the Willamette Valley would vote differently if Portland weren't in the state). Good comparison though.

[opebo]

Almost.
You'd have the same number of EVs, you'd be clearly majority Republican, but not by Idaho margins (unless we assume that the Willamette Valley would vote differently if Portland weren't in the state). Good comparison though.

I love this kind of 'what if', in which one splits states.  If it were possible to do so it would tend to benefit Republicans.  Though Oregon is unlikely to ever split I often think California should.  The southern half would possibly return some R. senators and electoral votes.