Where the candidates stand Electorally...All Can Win

[Dob Bole]

Using this oddly-shaped electoral college map, one can calculate that, if Dems got the same results as the 2000 election, Bush would win 278-260, instead of 271-267. This is because of the 2000 census.

Supposing that Dean carried all the Democratic swing states, I honestly think he would have to forsake any kind of Southern strategy, except for the state of West Virginia. Southerners do not like him. He should shoot for Ohio instead. With Ohio and West Virginia, Dean would win 285-253. With NH and West Virginia alone, there would be a 269-269 tie, and the House would appoint Bush. Florida is a possibility if Dean can find a Dem that Floridians like as a running mate. Dean with Florida- 291-247.

Now for Gephardt. It is reasonable that Gephardt could win WV and Missouri if he got the nomination, bringing the total to 280-258. With Missouri alone, 275-263.

Clark. Arkansas would swing the election 280-278. In the best case scenario, add WV and Florida for a total of 3 southern states. 302-236. Without Florida- 275-263.

Edwards. With North Carolina Alone, he wins 279-259. Add West Virginia- 284-254.

So Dems are in a good electoral position for 2004. We just have to be able to hold on to the states we won in 2000.

* WV based on the fact that Bush may not be on the ballot in that state.

[Dob Bole]

1. Oops...forgot to post link to map...

It's from an Edwards site: http://www.edwardsforprez.com/map.html

Click away. Have fun plotting the defeat of Bush.

[Josh]

2. Or all could lose - it's dangerously close -

we often forget just how close each of the states that were won in 2000 were. Look at these totals:

IOWA
Gore: 48.6%
Bush: 48.3%

PENNSYLVANIA
Gore: 50.6%
Bush: 46.4% (doesn't seem like much but it was only 200,000 votes - and 2004 will be a very different year in terms of voting for Bush, though steel tarrifs may screw him here.)

MINNESOTA
Gore: 47.9%
Bush: 45.5%

NEW MEXICO
Gore: 47.9%
BusH: 47.8% (this race was decided by 371 votes)

OREGON
Gore: 47.1%
Bush: 46.6%

WISCONSIN
Gore: 47.8%
Bush: 47.6% (there were only 5,500 votes in this one.)

As you can see, it's all extremely close. And the edge is with Bush at this stage. I see far too many threads saying, "All the Democrats have to do is win whatever states Gore won in 2000 plus X." It won't be that easy.

[Dob Bole]

3. You're right....

I think that whoever wins the Democratic nomination will be spending a lot of time and effort in Florida and Ohio for a win. We need the big states to offset whichever ones we might lose.

[TruthIsAll]

5. You forget the Nader votes..Gore would have won handily...

in each of the close states.

The Dems cannot be defeated by anyone other than Diebold in 2004.

They will get at least 54% this time.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

6. Nader made Oregon, Minnesota, and Wisconsin a lot closer races

than they should have been.

Nader ran strong campaigns in all 3 and got around 5% in each. The states that scare me are Iowa and NM because Bush's actual percentages were much better than the others. And people who claim that not a soul who voted for Gore will vote for Bush this 2nd time around just don't understand how fickle and uninformed a lot of voters are.

[arewethereyet]

4. I really hate to see people thinking along 2000 lines

the landscape has changed and little was solid even then.

this is a real roll up your sleeves election coming up. Hope we're up for it.

[pruner]

7. you lost me at this point:

Supposing that Dean carried all the Democratic swing states, I honestly think he would have to forsake any kind of Southern strategy, except for the state of West Virginia. Southerners do not like him.

there is abosultely no evidence to support this claim.

Dean leads the latest Zogby SC poll.

he's in 2nd behind Edwards in the latest NC poll (Edwards 38-Dean 25… everyone else in single digits)

he leads in the latest FL poll and comes closest to beating Bush there.

WTF are you talking about?

[Dob Bole]

8. That's just how it is...

I don't mean anything offensive by it. Just because you wish Southerners liked Howard Dean, and just because he's right, doesn't mean that Southerners like him. He's basically just a big joke to everybody, after his flag comments. To top that off, we get the "God, guns, and gays" comment. Sure, 20% of primary voters in any given state might like him, but that's not enough to carry that state.

His message is right for the South. But I don't think you can change 30 years of voting patterns in 8 months. The Solid South went down along with Jimmy Carter.

Here's one of the kinder articles explaining why Dean doesn't have appeal:

http://www.annistonstar.com/opinion/2003/as-editorials-1130-bayerscol-3k27s0307.htm

Still, there is a untapped Southern demographic that Dean could still draw from: evangelicals. That will require an honest discussion about religion without using stereotypes in the process.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16613-2003Nov26_2.html

[pruner]

9. whatever…

you're just another Dean-hater with a condescending attitude.

same shit, different day.