In the GE, would Obama stand better chance of winning VA or OH?

[kentuck]

Or Florida? Or NC? If you were a poker player and simply wanted to play the odds, you would pick a VP candidate from one of those states that you believe you would stand the best chance of winning. Because the election may hinge on either one of those states?

VA or OH? Which does Obama stand a better chance of winning? With the huge Navy and retired military population in VA, I believe that Obama might stand a better chance of winning in OH? But since Governor Strickland has withdrawn his name from the VP nomination, who else could be chosen in OH??

Of course, there is FL and NC. Which of these would Obama have the best chance of winning? And would he have a better chance of winning either of these over VA or OH? Could Edwards help him in NC? And would he stand a better chance at winning NC over OH? Before the chips are thrown on the table, you want to make the bet on the state that gives you the best chance of winning and choose the VP candidate from that state?

States of secondary importance would be NM and CO in the West. But they do not offer as many electoral votes as the others mentioned. Just to carry NM alone would not be worth considering Richardson for the VP.

Or you might choose a regional candidate to help in the states mentioned but also to help with a region of the country? In that case, you might choose a VP nominee from PA, or OH, or IN, or MI to help in the northern blue-collar states. Someone like a Governor Rendell or a Senator Bayh might help win these states.

Or you might choose a Southerner, perhaps a former military man, to help carry votes in the South, perhaps including VA, NC, LA, and AR? Someone like a James Webb or Wesley Clark might fit the tab for this area of the country?

Then, out West, you might choose someone like the Governor of Montana or the Governor of New Mexico? However, once all the regions of the country are put into play, you would want to choose a candidate from that region that you think you would stand the best chance of winning. In my opinion, Barack Obama would stand a slightly better chance of winning OH and the blue-collar working states of the North than he would the states in the South. Also, he would stand a better chance of winning the North than he would the West, in states like CO, NM, and MT, and NV.

Therefore, after all the options are weighed, both by the states and the regions, the best opportunity for a win lies in OH and the best nominee for the Vice Presidency should come from that state or that region in order to have the best chance at winning the electoral vote in the General Election. This is only my simple formula for picking a winning VP candidate and for winning the election in November.

[angee_is_mad]

1. OH, VA, NC

and then Florida. Yes we CAN!!!!

[kentuck]

2. But if you only could pick one state?

Which would it be? Because either one of those states should make him the winner in delegates.

[anon504]

6. YES WE CAN!!

wOOt!!

[BzaDem]

3. Definately Ohio.

People keep saying we should look at VA because OH "screwed us over" in the last 2 elections. Well VA screwed us over in the last 10 elections.

We lost Ohio by about 140k votes (2%). That was with a secretary of state who made every rule possible and violated every law he could get away with to ensure Bush won. He put fewer voting machines in urban areas (causing 12 hour lines), he (or his minions at his direciton) threw out hundreds of thousands of voter registrations in primarily democratic areas, and he decided to throw out any provisional ballots cast in the wrong line or building. For more information, look here (this should be required reading): http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen

This year, we have a Democratic governor, and more importantly, a Democratic secretary of state, who is doing everything she can to ensure that the 2008 Ohio Presidential Election will be completely fair. Add that (which should alone give us a win compared to 2004) to the toxic political environment for Republicans, and we should definately win OH.

We may be able to win VA too, but we lost it by 9 points last time, and we lost it for the last 10 presidential elections. It remains to be seen if demographic shifts in the northern part of Virginia can eek out a win for Obama in VA. But he has a much better chance of winning in Ohio.

[jobycom]

4. There's another option, and I think Obama has hinted at it.

Change the entire gameboard. Run a purely national campaign focused on realigning the demographics based on issues more than demographic or regional strategies.

I say Obama has hinted at this because of how often he mentions Reagan, and his portrayal of Reagan as someone who fundamentally changed the nation's politics, tapping into the nation's discontent and offering a message of hope (I'm paraphrasing him, not saying this about Reagan myself, since I despise the pig with every fiber of my being). Obama also focuses on "hope" as his centerpiece, and seems more interested in appealing to people across the board than going after specific demographics. Add to this Obama's famous "bitter" comment, where he said people were interested in issues like guns and religion because they felt like government wouldn't listen to them on the real issues, like economics. Again, paraphrasing.

Obama and his advisers have said for a long time now that they were modeling his campaign after Reagan's. I think that's what Obama wants to try. He believes he can transcend the normal patterns, maybe even change the normal voting patterns of the nation, by appealing to higher issues, and cutting across all of the "little issues," like guns, religion, whatever.

If he goes that route, he'll pick someone who can complement rather than enhance him. The two classic examples of that strategy are Reagan and Kennedy. Both chose VPs who disagreed with them on many issues, but who had a national appeal and a strong voting support base of their own. They chose VPs who were popular for different reasons than themselves, to court the broadest base, and then tailored a national message to sweep across geographical lines. Both still used regional strategies--Reagan stole the South by running a racist campaign, JFK won Texas because of LBJ.

Both also chose their strongest primary rival as their VP, despite disliking that rival and despite their supporters disliking that rival. (I'm not predicting, I'm just pointing this out).

So, it will be interesting to see who Obama chooses, to see what strategy he's going to try. He'd be safest to go with a regional strategy. But he's made some comments that could mean otherwise.

[cloudythescribbler]

5. Both a broad realignment AND helping in a key state (FL) would go w/CA Sen Barbara Boxer

Having a woman without baggage and high negatives but WITH charisma and popularity would appeal to women across the country. Suburban women in many places, including PA, but also VA, OH, and CO and other swing states could tip a few extra % in these arenae to Obama. And in NV, having gotten so much media from CA (mainly Los Angeles), Boxer might be well known and help tip the state.

Bob Graham could also help a lot in FL.

Both Graham AND Boxer voted NO on the Iraq War Resolution back when ...

[jobycom]

17. Not unless you see Obama as the conservative side of the party.

Otherwise you have two lefties on the ticket, and that narrows your voting pool. The scenario I laid out, which I will now call the LBJ scenario just for convenience's sake, has to have a broad ideological spectrum, to convince people that he is really trying to cross ideological lines, to be something new.

As for not having baggage, that's not important. Anyone who runs for VP will acquire baggage. The GOP makes up shit about candidates, so choosing a candidate because they have no baggage is pointless. Not having baggage just means not having a national image.

Graham is an interesting pick. I think if Obama goes for a regional strategy, Graham might be his best option--former governor and senator, plenty of experience, not enough ego to overshadow Obama). But Graham also could work in the LBJ scenario--he's run before, so he's got a national image. He's moderate on some issues, so he won't push the liberalism towards critical mass. He might be the best of both worlds (he was also my first choice in 04, so I like him already).

The best candidates for the LBJ scenario are Clinton (though she's risky for other reasons), Clark, maybe Richardson, maybe Biden. Maybe Graham. Maybe even Feinstein.

Boxer doesn't bring much, really. We already win California. We already have a gender edge, and McCain isn't likely to cut into that. Boxer might work in a Clinton/Gore style strategy. Clinton chose Gore because they were similar and Gore enhanced Clinton's assets. Obama could choose Boxer to do that--highlight the liberal side of the ticket and highlight the changing demographic of the nation, maybe create some excitement that way.

It all depends on what strategy he uses, and that depends on what his polls are showing him people are thinking. If the nation is actually shifting to the left, rather than just rejecting the Republicans because of Bush's failures, Boxer would be a good choice. If the South looks winnable, Clark and Graham might work. If the whole nation seems dissatisfied, and is teetering towards going Democrat, but is unsure whether they like the liberal ideology, then a national strategy could result in a landslide. That's when Graham, Clark, or Richardson would be brilliant. Maybe Clinton.

I can't imagine him really considering Nunn, so the rumors mean one of two things. Either Obama is just rewarding Nunn for support (helping out his book and lecture fees by batting his name around), or Nunn is a diversion. Imagine if Obama wanted to pick Clinton, for whatever reason. The best way to make people love that pick is to pretend that he's going to pick Nunn. Then everyone would be relieved when he went with Clinton!

Anyway, just analyzing.

[Overseas]

7. Another one for BOTH PLEASE. Love the 50-state strategies.

I am very glad about the 50-state strategies. With grotesque incompetents like the current administration in power, now is the time to expand our base. This administration has inflicted pain and suffering upon many states in different ways as it has cynically tried to demonstrate how bad government is by putting its own incompetent friends and family in charge. They've done a heck of a job messing things up all across the country, so let's not miss those opportunities.

VIRGINIA -- Obama will appeal to current and former government employees who have been devastated by watching our country's core values and international reputation be smashed by the criminals in the Bush-Cheney administration. There are probably many Virginians longing for more intelligent foreign and military policies and a president who actually listens to his dedicated military and foreign service officers. They are probably disgusted by the Bush administration's attempt to privatize all government services with its incompetent friends and corporate cronies.

OHIO -- voters would appreciate a president who is committed to developing conservation and alternative energy technologies will be creating jobs and honoring the country's engineering prowess by building it back up and fostering science education for our future. They probably know, more than any of us, how much creative and concerted effort is required to retool our country for the 21st century and how much time we have lost with the Bush-Cheney Head-in-the-Sand approach.

[newmajority]

8. Depends on whether the DLC has ordered Strickland to rig the DIEBOLD machines for McCain

Seriously... there's a reason that the media always hypes the Hell out of Ohio, PA, and Florida. It's because they know damn well that the process has been totally and thoroughly corrupted in those states. Swing states?? Yeah right.

I think the late Mr Russert was on to something when he speculated this one might come down to the Mountain Time Zone. I was saying this even before Timmeh did. And that's one of the reasons I believe Obama/Richardson is the strongest ticket. And Obama/Schweitzer the best alternative to that.

[Hippo_Tron]

11. Give me a fucking break, Obama has had prominent DLCers on his side during the primaries

[On the Road]

9. It Would Have to be Ohio

Virginia is a state that looked better in the polls in 2004 than it did in the general election, which tends to be true of red states starting to turn blue.

Ohio on the other hand is a historical swing state, and has gone both ways in the past.

[kentuck]

12. I agree.

Also, I think Obama could pick a "regional" candidate from that area and still carry OH. If not Strickland, I think he would be effective with Governor Rendell or Senator Bayh as well. Not saying that I like either of those candidates, but I think they would work to win the election for Obama.

[On the Road]

13. I Don't Believe Obama Necessarily Has to Pick a Person from the State

I would just as soon he went for the knockout punch in Florida or Virginia. Like Clinton-Gore, the quality of the candidate is the most important.

[kentuck]

14. But...

Do you think FL or VA would be more difficult to win than OH? And he would get the same electoral result with either of those states. That is why I think OH should be the front-runner for the VP nominee.

[On the Road]

15. I Don't Know How to Read Florida

There are so many wild cards and odd blocs -- the "Southern Alabamans" in the panhandle, the right-wing Cubans, the elderly Jewish community. And the polls have been volatile. So it would be a gamble, although if it works, it's a sure election winner.

Obama is close enough in Virginia that a popular choice like Webb or Warner could easily turn the state. That is a more modest gamble.

Ohio is a safer choice. Personally, I think Obama will win there regardless of his VP, but it would help cement things.

I am skeptical that a regional midwestern candidate helps. If it's not a favorite son, someone from Indiana or Iowa is no different to an Ohioan voter than someone from Montana or Georgia. The southeast (and possibly the mountain West) may be different because there's a stronger regional identity.

[kentuck]

16. Also, since McCain has come out for off-shore drilling...

A lot of Floridians will be turned off by that decision. It could cause him to lose FL. Not a very wise political decision...

[Zynx]

10. Ohio will come before Virginia. States do not vote in isolation.

They correlate fairly closely with national trends + or - their own state partisan leanings.

[my3boyz]

18. Virginia. Ohio has a lot of older, working class dems that don't care for Obama.

I think Obama has a good shot in Virginia. I'm not so confident about Ohio. The working class dems might fall for the Republican spiel about Obama not being one of them (that he is and elite that does not understand them). If they fall for that crap again (as they did in 2004 after 4 years of hell under Bush) then I don't want to hear abt how hard it is in Ohio.