Democrats Seem to be Targeting 6 States

[HoopsCubs]

After watching the coverage and analysis of Kerry's win in NH on MSNBC, FOX and CNN for many, many hours last night, it appears (reading between the lines) that 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.

Given the formidable percentage of Hispanic  population growth in Clark county Nevada, in many counties in Arizona and New Mexico and in the 3 counties in south Florida, two analysts argued that New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson might be the perfect running mate for John Kerry (if Kerry is the nominee) to have a decent shot at winning Nevada, Arizona and Florida.

Most of these same analysts were also commenting on President Bush's ability to take away some of the states that Gore won, and most seemed to think that only Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota were possibilities, albeit medium-to-long shots.  They all said they'd be very surprised if Bush won Pennsylvania and Michigan with Kerry running.  No comments about Oregon.    
 
Back to the 6 states, the analysts felt that the only way for a Democrat to win in Ohio and West Virginia was to cement the steel traiff issue and the notion that Bush rushed us into war into the minds of those voters.  They also said winning New Hampshire would come down to how people felt on election morning.

If these experts and analysts have any credibility, I think what I learned last night was that the Democrats are going to concentrate in the North, the Southwest and Florida, and Karl Rove is going to concentate on the Mississippi River states in the Upper Midwest and the Pacific coast states.

With best regards,
HoopsCubs

[Dave from Michigan]

most of these states will most likely go republican.
West Virginia most likely to go dem.

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

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

Im simply not worried about NH in a 50/50 election.

FL, AZ, NV, and NM could all be safely Bush's if he nominates Estrada to the SCOTUS, should there be an opening.

If things get rough (continued flat job creation), Bush could drop Cheney and put someone from Ohio on the ticket.

kerry's voting record will also help in WV and Ohio

[Michael Z]

Nice and thorough analysis, HoopsCubs.

In my opinion, Ohio and Nevada could go either way.

NH is solid Republican, unless Kerry is the nominee, then it becomes a toss-up.

West Virginia will probably go Dem.

Florida is solid Republican territory. Same with Arizona.

The Democrats need to keep an eye on New Mexico, which could switch to Bush this year.

[Gustaf]

After watching the coverage and analysis of Kerry's win in NH on MSNBC, FOX and CNN for many, many hours last night, it appears (reading between the lines) that 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.

Given the formidable percentage of Hispanic  population growth in Clark county Nevada, in many counties in Arizona and New Mexico and in the 3 counties in south Florida, two analysts argued that New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson might be the perfect running mate for John Kerry (if Kerry is the nominee) to have a decent shot at winning Nevada, Arizona and Florida.

Most of these same analysts were also commenting on President Bush's ability to take away some of the states that Gore won, and most seemed to think that only Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota were possibilities, albeit medium-to-long shots.  They all said they'd be very surprised if Bush won Pennsylvania and Michigan with Kerry running.  No comments about Oregon.    
 
Back to the 6 states, the analysts felt that the only way for a Democrat to win in Ohio and West Virginia was to cement the steel traiff issue and the notion that Bush rushed us into war into the minds of those voters.  They also said winning New Hampshire would come down to how people felt on election morning.

If these experts and analysts have any credibility, I think what I learned last night was that the Democrats are going to concentrate in the North, the Southwest and Florida, and Karl Rove is going to concentate on the Mississippi River states in the Upper Midwest and the Pacific coast states.

With best regards,
HoopsCubs

Yes, that's a very decent analysis, basically this is how the election will look. Picking a running mate to get FL, AZ and NM is really interesting. Could be better to have a running mate from a state with more than 5 EVs though.

[© tweed]

Im simply not worried about NH in a 50/50 election.

FL, AZ, NV, and NM could all be safely Bush's if he nominates Estrada to the SCOTUS, should there be an opening.

If things get rough (continued flat job creation), Bush could drop Cheney and put someone from Ohio on the ticket.

kerry's voting record will also help in WV and Ohio

There simply isn't any prominent Ohio Republican political figure out there.  Taft isn't popular, and Voinivich and DeWine would be rejected by the GOP base for their centrism.

[HoopsCubs]

Nice and thorough analysis, HoopsCubs.

In my opinion, Ohio and Nevada could go either way.

NH is solid Republican, unless Kerry is the nominee, then it becomes a toss-up.

West Virginia will probably go Dem.

Florida is solid Republican territory. Same with Arizona.

The Democrats need to keep an eye on New Mexico, which could switch to Bush this year.

Thanks for the comments.  Call me naive, but I still think the Democratic candidate will have a shot at winning Florida.  I know Governor Jeb Bush won with a huge margin in his 2002 governor's race, and that the state has been trending right, but I still feel the Dems should be hopeful.   Gore+Nader secured 51% of the popular vote in 2000.  And, what if John Kerry decides to surprise everybody and ask Senator Bill Nelson to be his running mate?

You absolutely have to favor President Bush to  win Florida in 2004, but I give the Dems a shot for an upset here.

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

Given the formidable percentage of Hispanic  population growth in Clark county Nevada, in many counties in Arizona and New Mexico and in the 3 counties in south Florida, two analysts argued that New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson might be the perfect running mate for John Kerry (if Kerry is the nominee) to have a decent shot at winning Nevada, Arizona and Florida.

Richardson is a real threat and is simply another reason why Bush would want to play the Estrada card this spring.

[MAS117]

Kerry has said he will makes stops in ND

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

Kerry has said he will makes stops in ND

During the primaries or the general?

[Dave from Michigan]

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%

[MAS117]

during the primary on march 3rd

[jravnsbo]

err correction , feb 3d.  It is part of the 7 states next week and a caucus, just like NM.

As to richardson he has said no to VP also.

during the primary on march 3rd

[Nation]

Yeah, I was gonna say, Richardson's said repeatedly he wouldn't run as VP.

If Bob Graham got on the ticket for whoever gets the nod for the Democrats, would they have a shot at FL?

[Dave from Michigan]

Maybe I think it would still go for Bush but it would help the democrats and give them a better chance.

[Nation]

Graham might also appeal to some of the southern states, as they probably know him a little better, but I still think it's pretty much a given that the south in its entirety will go to Bush, with a close race in Florida.

[StevenNick]

most of these states will most likely go republican.
West Virginia most likely to go dem.

Don't bet on West Virginia going dem.  It was no fluke that Bush won there in 2000.  West Virginian's aren't going to vote for some ultra-liberal Massachusetts senator.

Kerry voted against the Defense of Marriage Act.  That'll kill him in WV.  Period.

[TheOldLine]

You are mostly spot on in pikcing out the States that Bush won in 2000 but is most likely to lose in 2004.  Especially the part about how Tennessee and Missouri (as well as Arkansas and Louisiana) are now very strongly Republican.

I think, though, that you are using some seriously rose-colored glasses if you think that Arizona and Nevada are any more competitive than Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.    Iowa and Wisconsin were both essentially recount States in 2000.   Moreover, the power of incumbency in a generally positive economic environment (note, I did not say a perfect economic environment, merely positive) is generally considered to be worth a percentage point or two to the incumbent.   Republicans also seem to be gaining strength in Minnesota on the strength of values issues as well.    I think that the same will be true in WV this year - but I'll admit to being outside the Conventional Wisdom on that one.

As for the excitement about Richardson, I don't think that he is necessarily a slam-dunk magnet for Hispanics since he neither looks particularly Hispanic nor does he have a Hispanic last name.

Graham would certainly assist any Democrat in Florida, but he is such a bad campaigner that I think it would still be a risky bet for the nominee.

Also, given that there is a 95% chance that the nominee will be a New Englander, either Kerry or Dean (the other 5% being Edwards), I think that we can color New Hampshire as a lean Democrat in November.  

Lastly, don't underestimate the importance of Bush lavishing attention on Pennsylvania these last four years the way that Clinton lavished attention on California.    Pennsylvania will definitely feature an all-out assault by Bush, especially since winning PA would essentially be a knock-out blow for the Democrats.   Also, keep an eye on the Republican primary fight there.... if Toomey upsets Specter, it could get the Republican base in Pennsylvania out in force.

TheOldLine

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If AR, TN, MO and LA and "very strongly Republican" then I'm a donkey.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If Toomey upsets Specter the PAGOP will have blown their brains out.

[TheOldLine]

If AR, TN, MO and LA and "very strongly Republican" then I'm a donkey.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Sorry, I meant to write "very strongly leaning Republican" (in Presidential races - note that the presence of Tom Daschle says nothing about how South Dakota will vote for Presidential electors.)  

And you are a donkey. :-)

TheOldLine

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Very Strongly Leaning?
Er... unusual phrase there...

Arkansas is more likely to go Dem than NH.

[TheOldLine]

AR is a better play for Dems than New Hampshire?   On what grounds?

Bush beat favorite-son Clinton's VP by 5.5% in AR.    In contrast, Bush won NH by 1.3%, less than half of Nader's total.   Moreover, Bush will almost certainly be facing a New Englander in NH.... likely Kerry, and half of NH is basically a suburb of Boston these days.   Kerry would have to be the narrow favorite in NH, and I fail to see how his appeal as an East-Coaster in Arkansas will make up 5.5 percentage points from what Gore pulled.

TheOldLine

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

Neither NH nor Ark is in play.  Bush would win both in a 50/50 election vs Kerry.  But I agree Bush will carry Ark by a greater margin than NH unless Clark is on the ticket.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

[TheOldLine]

What do you consider to be VT's old ways?

Also, you still haven't explained where a rich Northeasterner is going to pick up 5.5% on a popular incumbent President in a pro-war State with little immigration.    Kerry can't exactly become Clinton's VP - which implies that the real margin Kerry needs to make up is 6 or even 7%.

TheOldLine