Ohio and Missouri

[Gustaf]

OH is a key state, but it's too soon to tell anything for sure.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Have to agree with you there Beefwith the new break down of the Electoral College favouring Republicans the Dems best shot is to hope to win MO and/or OH in both states I would argue it will get highly competitiveIll stick my neck out and say that the Dems best shot out of the two is in OHbut as Ive said both will be close and very competitiveother states the Dems will probably concentrate on will be NM, IA, PA, WV, NV, OR, NH and AZ.

I agree with Ben, i think there's about 6 traditional republican states that are really close. But there's also the case of CA and PA, wich are close (right now, i don't think will be in Nov)

There's a scenario in which Bush takes CA.  It involves the capture of OBL, establishment of a peaceful stable democracy in Iraq, the DOW at 15,000, and mass conversions to Evangelical Protestantism.

In other words, "not likely."  Bush will take PA, MI, IA, WI, OR, MN, and possibly NJ and IL before he'll take CA.

[© tweed]

There's a scenario in which Bush takes CA.  It involves the capture of OBL, establishment of a peaceful stable democracy in Iraq, the DOW at 15,000, and mass conversions to Evangelical Protestantism.

In other words, "not likely."  Bush will take PA, MI, IA, WI, OR, MN, and possibly NJ and IL before he'll take CA.

Bush has a much better chance at Calfornia than you're letting on.  Gore only won California by 12% or so...so a 6% swing gives it to Bush.

[Esteban Manuel]

Have to agree with you there Beefwith the new break down of the Electoral College favouring Republicans the Dems best shot is to hope to win MO and/or OH in both states I would argue it will get highly competitiveIll stick my neck out and say that the Dems best shot out of the two is in OHbut as Ive said both will be close and very competitiveother states the Dems will probably concentrate on will be NM, IA, PA, WV, NV, OR, NH and AZ.

I agree with Ben, i think there's about 6 traditional republican states that are really close. But there's also the case of CA and PA, wich are close (right now, i don't think will be in Nov)

There's a scenario in which Bush takes CA.  It involves the capture of OBL, establishment of a peaceful stable democracy in Iraq, the DOW at 15,000, and mass conversions to Evangelical Protestantism.

In other words, "not likely."  Bush will take PA, MI, IA, WI, OR, MN, and possibly NJ and IL before he'll take CA.

I totally agree with that

[elcorazon]

There's a scenario in which Bush takes CA.  It involves the capture of OBL, establishment of a peaceful stable democracy in Iraq, the DOW at 15,000, and mass conversions to Evangelical Protestantism.

In other words, "not likely."  Bush will take PA, MI, IA, WI, OR, MN, and possibly NJ and IL before he'll take CA.

Bush has a much better chance at Calfornia than you're letting on.  Gore only won California by 12% or so...so a 6% swing gives it to Bush.

If that's the threshold then the following are in play:

Georgia
Colorado
Louisiana
Virginia
Arizona
Ark
WV
Missouri
Ohio
Nev
Tenn
NH
Fla
NM
Wisc
IA
OR
MN
MI
PA
ME
WA
VT
IL
CA

The reality is those states on the fringe are in play, but only if the election is not close in which case they don't really matter anyway.  I do wonder whether some of the smaller ones sometimes change hands when ignored (WV in 2000).

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Bush has a much better chance at Calfornia than you're letting on.  Gore only won California by 12% or so...so a 6% swing gives it to Bush.

It doesn't sound like much of a swing, unless you look at it this way: Gore won by 1.3 million votes.  So you're talking about a swing of 650,000 voters.  Yes, there is a stong conservative base in the Golden State, but not nearly as strong as the millions of rabid Bush-haters in SF and LA who will come out in droves to vote for ANY Democrat.  I just don't see any chance for Bush here.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

The reality is those states on the fringe are in play, but only if the election is not close in which case they don't really matter anyway.  I do wonder whether some of the smaller ones sometimes change hands when ignored (WV in 2000).

WV is an interesting case, because it's heavily Union, and just as socially conservative in the rest of the South.  It's also about as strong an anti-gun-controll state as you are going to get.  In 2000, Gore failed to associate himself with the economic successes of Clinton.  He failed to establish himself as a worker's candidate - really on economic issues in 2000 there was little difference between Gore and Bush.  Thus, the voters in WV picked the social conservative: Bush.

I predict that the outcome in WV will come down to the economy.  The better it is perceived on Nov. 2, the better chance Bush has of keeping it.

[© tweed]

Bush has a much better chance at Calfornia than you're letting on.  Gore only won California by 12% or so...so a 6% swing gives it to Bush.

It doesn't sound like much of a swing, unless you look at it this way: Gore won by 1.3 million votes.  So you're talking about a swing of 650,000 voters.  Yes, there is a stong conservative base in the Golden State, but not nearly as strong as the millions of rabid Bush-haters in SF and LA who will come out in droves to vote for ANY Democrat.  I just don't see any chance for Bush here.

well, it does take alot to swing 1.3 millions voters.

[MN-Troy]

The Bush Administration was secretly joyful that Richard Gephardt dropped out of the race because he would have caused problems for President Bush in Missouri.

Given the circumstance that Kerry will be the Democrat nominee, President Bush is slightly favored to win Missouri (if all things are constant). But both parties will spend time in that state.

Ohio is extremely important for President Bush in 2004. Ohio has been the hardest hit with the economic slow down and slowest to gain jobs. Its stand to reason that Bush will declare residency in Ohio and will be campaigning relentlessly

[MN-Troy]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bush has a much better chance at Calfornia than you're letting on.  Gore only won California by 12% or so...so a 6% swing gives it to Bush.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

President Bush will be wise to spend his money on the Midwest rather than in Califorina, unless poll numbers say otherwise.

But given this time, I would say California is 60% chance of Democrat pick up in '04.

[muon2]

Ohio is extremely important for President Bush in 2004. Ohio has been the hardest hit with the economic slow down and slowest to gain jobs. Its stand to reason that Bush will declare residency in Ohio and will be campaigning relentlessly

It's probably true, and the adage still remains that no GOP candidate becomes president without Ohio.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Gore lost WV because despite a slight rise in turnout of registered voters statewide, there was a sharp fall in the overwhelmingly Democrat south of the state.
His failure to play to the economic populism that dominates WV cost him the state... and the election.

[NHPolitico]

MO--turnout was TERRIBLE for dems there.  415,000 onl y in dem primary.  GOP Primary in 2000 when there was race, was 465,000.  So much for the fired up party in MO.

Plus Gov Holden is very unpopular and will split the party with a primary fight of his own.

Bush will win MO, not worried.

You actually underestimated the GOP primary turnout in 2000. Here's some more info on turnout so far from the Free Congress Foundation (regarding whether Democrats really are fired up about the race and about the candidates):

--Democrats had 219,787 votes in this year's New Hampshire primary. Republicans had 239,523 four years ago.

--Nearly 112,000 fewer Democrats turned out for the Missouri primary this year than in the hotly contested 1988 contest. In 2000, Republicans had a turnout of 475,705 voters.

--In North Dakota, 12,512 Democrats turned out this year. In 1992, it was 32,786.

--Democrats had a pretty good three-way race this year in Oklahoma between Kerry, John Edwards and Wesley Clark. More than 302,000 voters showed up. But in 1992, another good race, nearly 114,000 more Democrats voted. "In every (state except Iowa) the Democrat figures are down from previous years or, as in New Hampshire, still underperform compared with the GOP turnout in 2000," Mr. Weyrich found.

--Democrats had 219,787 votes in this year's New Hampshire primary. Republicans had 239,523 four years ago.

--Nearly 112,000 fewer Democrats turned out for the Missouri primary this year than in the hotly contested 1988 contest. In 2000, Republicans had a turnout of 475,705 voters.

--In North Dakota, 12,512 Democrats turned out this year. In 1992, it was 32,786.

--Democrats had a pretty good three-way race this year in Oklahoma between Kerry, John Edwards and Wesley Clark. More than 302,000 voters showed up. But in 1992, another good race, nearly 114,000 more Democrats voted. "In every (state except Iowa) the Democrat figures are down from previous years or, as in New Hampshire, still underperform compared with the GOP turnout in 2000," Mr. Weyrich found.