Which Gore States Would Kerry Lose?

[© tweed]

that's a hopeful prediction, wakie.

[12th Doctor]

I don't buy into to this "Kerry will lose more states than Gore" school of thought.

Kerry has some distinct advantages which Gore did not.  The whole veteran thing plays well with military, military families, and vets.  He is a Catholic.  The fastest growing group in this country are Hispanics who are, almost universally, Catholic.  He doesn't have the loss of Nader voters the way Gore did.

With that in mind here are the states I think are "in play".

FL -- Clearly.  Add 1/4 of Nader votes to Gore and Gore wins the state.  Kerry should do at least as good as Bush did here, if not better.

PA -- Always a battleground state.  Tends to go Democrat more often though.

OH -- Again, always a battleground state.  Tends to go Republican more often.  Steel tariffs could put it in play.

WV -- Typically a Dem state, went Republican in 2000.  Steel tariffs could switch it back to the Dems.

MN -- Used to be a Dem stronghold but has gradually been drifting Repub.

MO -- Always a battleground.

NM -- Gore barely won it in 2000.  Will definitely be in play again.

AZ -- Used to be a Repub stronghold but has gradually been drifting Dem.  Throw in the vet factor and I wouldn't be shocked to see a Kerry upset here.

NV -- Typically a Repub stronghold.  But in Vegas being the fastest expanding American city (and having a very "liberal" social attitude) one tends to believe this could be changing.  Especially after it got the nation's nuclear waste.

NH & VT -- Hard to predict these states.

Other states I think are minor battlegrounds but less likely to shift include CA, OR, IA, WI, AR, LA, GA, and NJ.

Gore maybe liberal, but he ran as a centrist.  Why can't you guys understand, noone as liberal as Dean or Kerry can win in America if they run as a liberal.  Also, the Republicans have out registered Democrats nearly 3-1 in some of these states over the last 3 years.  That includes PA, FL, AZ, MN and MO.  You guys don't seem to get that this is not going to be the same as the election in 2000.  You are stratigizing around that.  That's your problem.  You should be concentrating on "what can we say to convince the American people that we are better than Bush", not "what can we do to win one more state"?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I've changed my mind on Kerry.
He campaigned well in IA and now looks the part without seeming to look down on people.

[TheOldLine]

The key thing to remember about Governor elections is that they mean ZERO when it comes to Presidential races.

New York has had a Republican Governor since '94 and Massachusetts has had several Republican Governors in succession - both of them are Democratic locks, however.   Ditto for California, where Arnold was elected on the strength of local issues - not on any kind of shift in California's substantial Democratic majority.

The same is true for Senatorial races, where in WV's case, it has two very strong incumbents, who aren't going anywhere until they die or retire.   Nevertheless, those seats are very likely to be competitive once Byrd and Rockefeller evenutally move on.

Presidentially, however, by comparing the electoral maps for the most recent "competitive" races of 1976, 1992, 1996, and 2000 you can see a fundamental tectonic shift underway in the disposition of the "Solid South."    In 1976, Jimmy Carter perhaps had the defining "Solid South" election.    After the blowouts of the 1980's, Bill Clinton's election in the 1992 shows an electoral map in chaos.   By 1996, however, the familiar electoral map of 2000 can be seen as developing.

The trend underlying this paradigm shift is "The Culture War."   Over the last 20-30 years, the old "Yellow Dog" Democrats have been slowly changing their affiliation from Democrat to Republican.   That shift finally reached WV in 2000, where Bush won by nearly 6.5%.  

The Democratic nominee may offer token competition in WV - sort of like how Bush will offer token competition in IL, but in the end, it is nearly impossible for me  to imagine an incumbent who was elected in a close race losing a 6.5% margin.

TheOldLine  

[HoopsCubs]

TheOldLine,

The points you raise are valid.  Still, let's see how the steel tariff issue plays out.  I still think the Dems can take this state back.

HoopsCubs

[Wakie]

It seems to me that no matter who the Dem candidate is (Kerry/Dean/Clark/Edwards), this will be a tight election.

All the polls, up until now, show the country split down the middle.

The attacks I've heard on Kerry are that he's an ultraliberal.  But that isn't really true.  His economic plan is more centrist than Dean and Clark.  On social policy he is progressive, but not to the Dean level.  On firearms he's a centrist (really he only wants to close the loophole which allows people to sell guns from their personal collection w/o doing a background check).

You're right, Gore campaigned as a centrist.  Kerry will do the same but with his own flavor.

Bush, on the other hand, also ran as a centrist.  But his record over the last 3 years has been that of an extremist.  That is going to cost him many votes.

[Gustaf]

It seems to me that no matter who the Dem candidate is (Kerry/Dean/Clark/Edwards), this will be a tight election.

All the polls, up until now, show the country split down the middle.

The attacks I've heard on Kerry are that he's an ultraliberal.  But that isn't really true.  His economic plan is more centrist than Dean and Clark.  On social policy he is progressive, but not to the Dean level.  On firearms he's a centrist (really he only wants to close the loophole which allows people to sell guns from their personal collection w/o doing a background check).

You're right, Gore campaigned as a centrist.  Kerry will do the same but with his own flavor.

Bush, on the other hand, also ran as a centrist.  But his record over the last 3 years has been that of an extremist.  That is going to cost him many votes.

You're being way too optimistic there Wakie. 9/11 changed a lot of things. Bush has led the nation successfully throughout political and economical crises, and that will persuade a lot of voters to lean towards him.

[Wakie]

Gustaf, you're in Sweden, right?

I wouldn't say that Bush has successfully led this country through anything.  The apparent rebound in the economy is being fueled by consumer spending.  Job and wage growth was at the lowest it has been since the Jimmy Carter era.  A disproportionate number of the jobs which have been created are temporary jobs.

I know people who voted Gore in 2000 and people who voted Bush.  None of the Gore voters I know are switching.  Some of the Bush voters are.

It all boils down to the Reagan yardstick.  Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?  Right now the answer for most Americans is No.

[Beet]

The key thing to remember about Governor elections is that they mean ZERO when it comes to Presidential races.

New York has had a Republican Governor since '94 and Massachusetts has had several Republican Governors in succession - both of them are Democratic locks, however.   Ditto for California, where Arnold was elected on the strength of local issues - not on any kind of shift in California's substantial Democratic majority.

The same is true for Senatorial races, where in WV's case, it has two very strong incumbents, who aren't going anywhere until they die or retire.   Nevertheless, those seats are very likely to be competitive once Byrd and Rockefeller evenutally move on.

Presidentially, however, by comparing the electoral maps for the most recent "competitive" races of 1976, 1992, 1996, and 2000 you can see a fundamental tectonic shift underway in the disposition of the "Solid South."    In 1976, Jimmy Carter perhaps had the defining "Solid South" election.    After the blowouts of the 1980's, Bill Clinton's election in the 1992 shows an electoral map in chaos.   By 1996, however, the familiar electoral map of 2000 can be seen as developing.

The trend underlying this paradigm shift is "The Culture War."   Over the last 20-30 years, the old "Yellow Dog" Democrats have been slowly changing their affiliation from Democrat to Republican.   That shift finally reached WV in 2000, where Bush won by nearly 6.5%.  

The Democratic nominee may offer token competition in WV - sort of like how Bush will offer token competition in IL, but in the end, it is nearly impossible for me  to imagine an incumbent who was elected in a close race losing a 6.5% margin.

TheOldLine  

TheOldLine, welcome to the Atlas Forum! I am so happy to have another person from the Old Line State. Though I'm sure we disagree on issues, I think you make some valid points about West Virginia. This is the state that went for Dukakis by 5 points in 1988. But as elsewhere in the Midwest, the steel industry is employing fewer and fewer workers due to rising productivity. Furthermore, when Democrats throw their support behind free trade, the state is more likely to vote on social and tax issues. However, it is also quite a poor state with a stagnating population. I don't think it quite fits in perfectly with any region. With the upper middle and middle class supporting Republicans but the lower class supporting Democrats, the state could still be competitive if the election comes down to the issue that the not-so-well-off people of West Virginia care about. Such as health care.

I don't think this election will resolve around social issues, although those issues will be affected. Bush has built his presidency on foreign policy, but the election will focus around the economy and related issues.

[MAS117]

i can say kerry would definatly not lose NJ

[© tweed]

i can say kerry would definatly not lose NJ

i agree also i can say you difinatly ned help w/speling

[Gustaf]

Gustaf, you're in Sweden, right?

I wouldn't say that Bush has successfully led this country through anything.  The apparent rebound in the economy is being fueled by consumer spending.  Job and wage growth was at the lowest it has been since the Jimmy Carter era.  A disproportionate number of the jobs which have been created are temporary jobs.

I know people who voted Gore in 2000 and people who voted Bush.  None of the Gore voters I know are switching.  Some of the Bush voters are.

It all boils down to the Reagan yardstick.  Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?  Right now the answer for most Americans is No.

Yes, I am. I think the Swedish media gives a much more negative picture of Bush than the American media, so if you mean to imply that I am cut off  from American reality by being in Sweden, I don't think it holds in this case. The old "but-everyone-hates-Reagan/Thatcher/Bush, etc-mantra" is dangerous. I agree that a lot of bad things have happened. But Bush is percieved as a strong leader, and I think most Americans feel that he's been put in a ard position and has done the right things to deal with that. That's what I meant by leading the country successfilly.

[jravnsbo]

welcoem to the forum!  Gov Ehrlich must be doing a good job, new Republicans in a liberal land.

Poker, funny!

I can imagine how Edwards stands on guns went over there last night and many places.  Hurt gore and will hurt dems again.

I don't see Kerry winning West Virginia.... in my mind, WV is undergoing the same shift as the rest of rural America in joinging the side of the Republicans in the culture war.    WV should be part of the new "Solid South" for the Republicans for a while.

Most Gore states are solidly Democratic, with the exception of the four out of the five "recount States" won by Gore - OR, NM, IA, and WI, along with MN (which seems to be trending Republican) and PA (which seems to be trending Democratic.)  

I predict that the Democratic nominee hangs onto OR, but loses IA, WI, and MN.  I'm still torn about NM depending on the day of the week... it would be great if it ended in a tie and the Presidency was then decided by a hand of poker.  

TheOldLine

[jravnsbo]

Senators our icons, Rockefeller nd Byrd bring home the PORK in big quantities and will be there till they die.

WV Gov election is in 2004 isn't it? , not 2002 and outgoing governor was involved ina sex scandal.

I don't see Kerry winning West Virginia.... in my mind, WV is undergoing the same shift as the rest of rural America in joinging the side of the Republicans in the culture war.    WV should be part of the new "Solid South" for the Republicans for a while.

Most Gore states are solidly Democratic, with the exception of the four out of the five "recount States" won by Gore - OR, NM, IA, and WI, along with MN (which seems to be trending Republican) and PA (which seems to be trending Democratic.)  

I predict that the Democratic nominee hangs onto OR, but loses IA, WI, and MN.  I'm still torn about NM depending on the day of the week... it would be great if it ended in a tie and the Presidency was then decided by a hand of poker.  

TheOldLine

How do you explain, then, West Virginians electing a Democrat for Governor in 2002, and re-electing both of their Democratic U.S. senators, one in 2002 and the other in 2000?

Also, Bill Clinton won WV and Louisiana with more than 50% of the popular vote in 1996.  Ross Perot did nothing to give Clinton victories in those 2 states - Dole would have lost both of those states even if Perot had not run.

I think Kerry can win WV and NH - 2 states that Gore lost in 2000.  
   

[bullmoose88]

Pennsylvania actually might favor the Democrats if Kerry wins. Remember his wife was the wife of beloved senator heinz and that family has some sway in crucial parts of the state.

Kerry might also be attractive to southeasterners which might be turned off by the hotheaded Dean.

[Gustaf]

Pennsylvania actually might favor the Democrats if Kerry wins. Remember his wife was the wife of beloved senator heinz and that family has some sway in crucial parts of the state.

Kerry might also be attractive to southeasterners which might be turned off by the hotheaded Dean.

Southeaterns means, PA southeaterners, right?

[12th Doctor]

Gustaf, you're in Sweden, right?

I wouldn't say that Bush has successfully led this country through anything.  The apparent rebound in the economy is being fueled by consumer spending.  Job and wage growth was at the lowest it has been since the Jimmy Carter era.  A disproportionate number of the jobs which have been created are temporary jobs.

I know people who voted Gore in 2000 and people who voted Bush.  None of the Gore voters I know are switching.  Some of the Bush voters are.

It all boils down to the Reagan yardstick.  Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?  Right now the answer for most Americans is No.

I don't get where you come-off calling Bush an extremist.  He gave out a prescription drug benefit, he let Ted Kennedy write the education bill, he granted what amounts to amnesty for illegals not to mention tons of other left-wing things he's done.

If Kerry shifts back to being a centrist, then he will have to reject his campagn possitions and the hundreds of votes he has made in the Senate.

[Nation]

Nah, Ehrlich's done crap. Legislature overturned three of his vetoes, the guy won't let go of his slot machines, and refuses to do anything to help the budget until they pass. And, although I don't think the MD government has had anything to do with the tuition increased at UMD, he'll get nailed for that too. One term-governor.


I must have missed Edwards gun stance, what'd he say?

welcoem to the forum!  Gov Ehrlich must be doing a good job, new Republicans in a liberal land.

Poker, funny!

I can imagine how Edwards stands on guns went over there last night and many places.  Hurt gore and will hurt dems again.

I don't see Kerry winning West Virginia.... in my mind, WV is undergoing the same shift as the rest of rural America in joinging the side of the Republicans in the culture war.    WV should be part of the new "Solid South" for the Republicans for a while.

Most Gore states are solidly Democratic, with the exception of the four out of the five "recount States" won by Gore - OR, NM, IA, and WI, along with MN (which seems to be trending Republican) and PA (which seems to be trending Democratic.)  

I predict that the Democratic nominee hangs onto OR, but loses IA, WI, and MN.  I'm still torn about NM depending on the day of the week... it would be great if it ended in a tie and the Presidency was then decided by a hand of poker.  

TheOldLine

[Beet]

He's made some very extreme changes in U.S. foreign doctrine, moving away from a solidarity of Western and civilized nations with a strong emphasis on human rights and arms control, to a 17th-century Europe style Hobbesian free-for-all. He's proposed some things to make himself look moderate but none of these proposals to my knowledge have actually been passed. And a lot of it (like immigration amnesty) is just doing it for the benefit of big businessess.

[bullmoose88]

Pennsylvania actually might favor the Democrats if Kerry wins. Remember his wife was the wife of beloved senator heinz and that family has some sway in crucial parts of the state.

Kerry might also be attractive to southeasterners which might be turned off by the hotheaded Dean.

Southeaterns means, PA southeaterners, right?

Heh. Precisely :-p

[Gustaf]

Pennsylvania actually might favor the Democrats if Kerry wins. Remember his wife was the wife of beloved senator heinz and that family has some sway in crucial parts of the state.

Kerry might also be attractive to southeasterners which might be turned off by the hotheaded Dean.

Southeaterns means, PA southeaterners, right?

Heh. Precisely :-p

Just making sure...

[Dave from Michigan]

Kerry could lose Michigan.  Although no matter who wins the nomination Michigan should be close.

[Michael Z]

Kerry could lose Michigan.  Although no matter who wins the nomination Michigan should be close.

I always thought Michigan was a stronghold for the Democrats?

[12th Doctor]

Kerry could lose Michigan.  Although no matter who wins the nomination Michigan should be close.

I always thought Michigan was a stronghold for the Democrats?

It depends, Michigan is usually relibly Democrat, but it has a strong Republican base and has been known to go Republican where the Dems run someone who is too liberal.

[zorkpolitics]

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.