home

Why The Big States Matter

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:20:33 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

I am asked why the big contested states should matter so much to me? I think it is pretty obvious but let me try it this way:

California - 55 EVs. Texas - 34 EVs. (A GOP stronghold) New York - 31 EVs. (A Dem stronghold) Florida - 27 EVs. (Thanks Howard and Donna.) Illinois - 21 EVs. (A Dem stronghold.) Pennsylvania - 21 EVs. Ohio - 20 EVs. Georgia - 15 EVS. (a GOP stronghold.) North Carolina - 15 EVs. (a GOP stronghold) New Jersey - 15 EVs. Virginia - 13 EVs. Mass - 12 EVs.

And a few others down the list -

Minnesota - 10. Wisconsin - 10. Iowa - 7. Nevada - 5. Colorado - 9. Oregon - 7. Arkansas - 6.

Obama is perceived to have a meaningful General Election advantage in Virginia and the states I list below, save Arkansas. That is 61 EVs.

In my view, Clinton has a perceived advantage, for many reasons including the DNC's idiotic behavior, in Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, California, New Jersey and Arkansas. That adds up to 144 EVs.

Obama NEEDS to prove he can win electoral vote rich states that Dems can win, like Ohio and Pennsylvania. This election will NOT be won in Utah, Alabama and North Dakota.

That is why the big contested states matter.

< Ohio: Now A Contest Too | Exit Polls: Why The Media Is A Joke >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Why The Big States Matter | 117 comments (117 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Nor will the GE be won by Texas (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:27:03 PM EST
    I agree with your analysis.

    But can you explain this? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:30:20 PM EST
    Mark Penn notes, and it seems pretty reasonable imho, that winning big states doesn't mean anything, because almost every Democratic nominee lately has won the big states -- and yet, other than Bill Clinton all of them have lost in the last 30 years.

    My point is this: Even though Obama lost California to Clinton, do we really think that California will not vote for Obama when going against McCain?  Similarly, Clinton lost Connecticut to Obama, do we really think that Conn. will not vote for Clinton when going against McCain?

    You say that:

    Obama NEEDS to prove he can win electoral vote rich states that Dems can win

    But he needs to prove he can win them against McCain, not Clinton!

    Sure. (none / 0) (#11)
    by ajain on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:38:15 PM EST
    California could vote for McCain. I mean just because the Hollywood Hills are the first thing that comes to mind does not mean it is Dem stronghold. Latinos might as well give a decent portion of their vote to McCain and even if they don't, conservative democrats might.

    Parent
    i don't think so (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:39:41 PM EST
    we hate Bush, and McCain loves Bush. We have war, and Mccain loves war.

    No, the only thing McCain will get from California is money.

    Parent

    Yes, but (none / 0) (#79)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:36:59 PM EST
    I also didn't think we'd end up with the Terminator as Governor, and look where that got us.

    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#87)
    by xjt on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:57:27 PM EST
    I live in California. Maybe you can explain to me what you are talking about because it is very confusing, and I have no idea what you are trying to say.

    Parent
    Mark Penn noted that? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:48:44 PM EST
    Proves he is still an idiot.

    As for proving he can win, beat Clinton first, the best test available right now.

    McCain is the GE.

    Do not follow your point at all.

    Parent

    my point is this: (none / 0) (#50)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:02:39 PM EST
    Winning Dem primaries doesn't tell you how you will do in the general election.

    Didn't Kerry and Gore and Dukakis and McGovern all win the California primaries?  Did it help any of them win the GE?  Did it help Dukakis or McGovern win California in the GE?

    Let me state it another way:

    If 2.3 million vote for Dem-X
    and 1.9 million vote for Dem-Y
    and 2.4 million voted for all of the GOP

    and if, as polls say, approx 80% of Clinton supporters will vote for Obama and vice versa, then how could either Dem-X or Dem-Y lose against GOP-Z?

    (The math: if Dem-Y gets 80% of Dem-X's vote, then he will get 3.7 million votes.  If all the GOP's vote for the GOP in addition to the 20% of Dem-X, then GOP-guy will get 2.8 million votes -- almost a full million fewer than the weaker Dem).


    Parent

    You think it has no value (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:08:03 PM EST
    for determining who will win the state in a GE?

    That's interesting. I do.

    Parent

    big states? (none / 0) (#63)
    by manish on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:14:49 PM EST
    Hey BTD,

    Do you think that the Clinton voters in California, New York, etc. won't vote for Obama in the general?    Do you really think that losing to Hillary is a sign of Obama losing in the general?

    I think the bigger barometer is who can win the purple states.  Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, etc. are what really matter.

    Parent

    Watch Wisconsin today -- closest state (none / 0) (#111)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:40:21 PM EST
    in 2004.  Some call the swing states the "Superstate of Minnewisowa," including your call for Iowa as a swing state.  Problem is that both Iowa and Minnesota had caucuses, and with different processes, so they aren't as predictive of results in a general election.  So Wisconsin is useful today -- I hear that the superdelegates are watching it for just your reasoning.

    Parent
    let me ask you this? (none / 0) (#66)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:18:01 PM EST
    Has it proven to be a determinant in elections past?

    I don't see it, which is why I don't think it's important now.

    But I am very open to changing my mind, if someone can show me how it mattered in past elections.

    But, like I said, the examples of Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, seem to indicate it doesn't matter a whole lot.  And, further, I just don't see how either Obama or Clinton can lose Calif/NY to McCain, or how either can win Texas against McCain.

    So, again, two questions: (a) has it mattered in past elections? (b) do you really see a danger of Calif, NY, or Texas flipping?

    Parent

    because you cannot base (none / 0) (#57)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:08:26 PM EST
    ge turnouts on primary turnouts.  Many, many people do not even pay attention until candidates are chosen by each party.  

    Yes, I know it's crazy, but it's true.

    Parent

    in some places (5.00 / 9) (#21)
    by Turkana on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:48:55 PM EST
    people would be accusing you of saying utah, alabama, and north dakota don't matter...

    I know (5.00 / 8) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:55:06 PM EST
    that blog has gone insane.

    On the FP now.

    Parent

    well... (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Turkana on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:53:47 PM EST
    meteor blades, kagro, and mcjoan remain bastions of sanity. and a couple others, whom i won't name, so no one will feel left out...

    Parent
    Or you can name the insane ones (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:02:18 PM EST
    One is a good friend of mine.

    One is an avowed enemy of mine.

    Parent

    too many to name (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:04:14 PM EST


    Parent
    me? (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:03:06 PM EST


    Parent
    heh (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Turkana on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 06:15:04 PM EST
    i meant fpers.

    Parent
    Some of us have concluded (5.00 / 5) (#62)
    by badger on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:13:48 PM EST
    that that blog no longer matters.

    Parent
    I can't give it up (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:23:16 PM EST
    but I should

    Parent
    What does a rating of 1 mean (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:13:29 PM EST
    around here?

    I cannot find an explanation and I thought you migt know, since you seem to use that rating often.

    Parent

    cat got your tongue? (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:25:11 PM EST


    Parent
    Guess I can make up my own meaning (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:47:07 PM EST
    It means: Coigue, you are the most brilliant poster I have ever met! I wish I knew how to be as brilliant as you. Humbly yours, Left Talker.

    Parent
    You are so sweet. (5.00 / 0) (#122)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:53:20 PM EST
    I have to stop talking to you now, I don't want to be a chatterer. I hope you won't miss me too awful much.

    Parent
    I really want to know (none / 0) (#135)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 06:15:53 PM EST
    what does a 1 mean? what does a 5 mean? I can't find any FAQ that says.

    Parent
    What weighs more (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by HeadScratcher on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:54:03 PM EST
    A ton of bricks or a ton of feathers?

    BTD, let's assume everything stays the same from 2004 except that New Mexico, Nevada and Iowa switch from Republican to Democrat. 3 small states and the race changes. That's a change of roughly 37,000 votes between those three states which means that 18,500 people would switch their votes and the entire election changes.

    Yes, big states matter. But so do small states. Geez...

    Let's assume (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:55:50 PM EST
    Interesting, so this is the Obama 51-49 strategy now?

    Parent
    nothing wrong with it (none / 0) (#44)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:58:25 PM EST
    if it works

    Parent
    my point exactly (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by HeadScratcher on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:00:35 PM EST
    Nobody knows how many runs the Red Sox scored in the world series or how big the margins of victory were. But they won!

    Parent
    BTD (none / 0) (#45)
    by HeadScratcher on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:59:03 PM EST
    I, like you, have no idea what the Obama strategy is. I'm just saying that winning is all that matters - We've had amazingly close races in the past 48 years that could have been swung by a relatively few votes in 1960, 1976, 1992, 2000 and 2004.

    I know this since I "voted" for Buchanan in 2000 in Palm Beach County.

    It's not strategy as much as it is elementary math.

    Parent

    A ton of bricks...Oh wait (none / 0) (#41)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:57:01 PM EST
    :- P

    Parent
    And Hillary won 2 of 3... (none / 0) (#48)
    by znosaro on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:00:53 PM EST
    ergo...

    Parent
    irrelevant (none / 0) (#51)
    by HeadScratcher on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:03:34 PM EST
    since you'd have to assume that those that voted for Hillary would still for Obama in the GE. Let's face it, Hillary won New York but is New York going to vote Republican for the 1st time since....

    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#94)
    by xjt on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:03:18 PM EST
    So you're saying it doesn't matter that Obama has lost the big blue states because as long as he gets the nomination the democrats will vote for him in those states. And you're also saying that it's really great that he's winning the red states because he takes them away from McCain?

    My God--is that your logic?


    Parent

    Illinois also irrelevant for same reason (none / 0) (#109)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:37:16 PM EST
    as it will be Dem, no matter what.  So take it away, and what big blue state has Obama got?  That's the crux.


    Parent
    not by my count (none / 0) (#59)
    by Nasarius on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:10:23 PM EST
    See here. NV + NM + IA = 17 EVs. Flipping them would produce a new result of Kerry 268, Bush 269. I suppose that's a "change" in that neither would have reached 270, and I believe the House would decide the election. I'm pretty sure that's not how you want Obama to win.

    Parent
    FWIW, from Rasmussen (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:23:10 PM EST
    MN:
    McCain - 47%
    Clinton - 42%

    Obama - 53%
    McCain - 38%

    OR:
    McCain - 45%
    Clinton - 42%

    Obama - 49%
    McCain - 40%

    PA:
    McCain - 44%
    Clinton - 42%

    Obama - 49%
    McCain - 39%

    Yes, I understand the qualifiers that go with Nov. polls taken in Feb. But I do think this is at least as instructive as whether Clinton or Obama won CA.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#74)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:24:48 PM EST
    now the GE head-to-head polls are coming out, it's all the more information that is actually usable.

    Parent
    FWIW (none / 0) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:43:33 PM EST
    You left out a few.

    Florida for one. where Clinton runs better.

    Also FWIW, Q poll has Clinton running better than Obama in PA.

    Parent

    Q Poll (none / 0) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:44:04 PM EST
    has Clinton better in PA.

    Parent
    Wining a Democratic primary (4.00 / 1) (#1)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:26:38 PM EST
    has nothing to do with with wining in the GE.  Look at the head to head polls for Penn.  Hillary's way ahead in the primary but loses a in the GE.  You can't base primary performance wtih what will happen in the GE.  Well you can, but you should't.

    hmmm (none / 0) (#3)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:28:44 PM EST
    I think that is an oversimplification. Obviously the general will have different dynamics, but there are similarities that can provide clues to how the candidates will do in the general.

    Parent
    IT is preciselty because we are in a primary (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:30:08 PM EST
    that I now Clinton can win PA and that she is in a more favroable position than Obama.

    Her vote is solid for November. His is not.

    Bad argument from you.

    Parent

    solid? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:33:02 PM EST
    Her vote is solid for November. His is not.

    Is there evidence of that?  (I'm not challenging you, just asking).

    I know that generally speaking, the latest polls say that right now 79% of those who support Clinton will support Obama if he wins, and 79% of those who support Obama will support Clinton if she wins.

    So, I don't see where head-to-head tells us very much, when the opponent is McCain.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:51:47 PM EST
    They are Democrats. Dems are solid voters for Dems. Republicans and Indies are not.

    Parent
    That makes little sense. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:42:00 PM EST
    Even with record turnout, primary voting is still a fraction of GE turnout.  General elections are won with the independants who turn up in greater numbers in Nov.  A candidate may be stronger (solid) with Democratic voters, but they are likely to support either Dem. nominee.

    Parent
    It actually makes perfect sense (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:51:17 PM EST
    Independents turning out in the GE not coming out for Obama NOW are not liklely to be anti-clinton.

    all the anti-clinton vote is apparent NOW.

    This is proven by most national polling.

    Parent

    You have polling (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:58:09 PM EST
    that show independent voters who dislke Hillary are voting now and ones who are favorable or indifferent are staying home?  Please share.

    Parent
    they might be undecided (none / 0) (#36)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:54:58 PM EST
    and end up going for McCain, though

    Parent
    So could the ones showing up to vote for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:56:58 PM EST


    Parent
    More so in states with open Dem and closed (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:04:16 PM EST
    GOP primaries. There must be a model one can use. Break the independent vote out by category: what proportion of Indys that voted for Obama are likely to vote BO in the general, what proportion won't vote, how many will vote for McCain, for Hil, etc.

    I hope the superdelegates are furiously trying to figure that out.

    Parent

    A firmer base on which to build, maybe... (none / 0) (#16)
    by jr on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:45:47 PM EST
    ...but less material to build with.

    Parent
    Also (none / 0) (#19)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:47:45 PM EST
    following this arguement a 49-48 win would not be that much better than a 48-49 loss. Most of your "solid" support is still there.

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:50:05 PM EST
    You miss the basis of the "solid support" - Indies and Republicans are not solid support for Obama in a General Election.

    Parent
    Ahh (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:52:24 PM EST
    The famous poll of one.

    Thanks for your insight.

    Parent

    I did not say they were. (none / 0) (#34)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:54:14 PM EST


    Parent
    Then what is your point? (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:56:29 PM EST


    Parent
    OK let's isolate TX (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:36:53 PM EST
    Obama wins TX by 50,000 votes, tepid Obama suporter BTD says "Hoorah, he can win in the GE"

    Obama losses TX by 50,000 votes and it's "Tsk-tsk, better do better in PA".

    In a state neither candidate is likely to win in Nov.

    Parent

    Winning matters (none / 0) (#112)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:40:21 PM EST
    BTW, PA better be in the Dem column or we are cooked.

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#125)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 05:03:08 PM EST
    So...

    Parent
    The way I see it... (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:36:16 PM EST
    ... is that Democratic primary voters at this point have every incentive to desert Hillary for Obama, since it would be in the best interests of the party to settle the nomination quickly and cleanly. If they won't do that, I think it suggests they have real reservations about him.

    Parent
    I don't think (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:37:52 PM EST
    most voters think like that, but spin away.

    Parent
    I don't see how they wouldn't think that way. (none / 0) (#14)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:41:22 PM EST
    It's not like you can go anywhere without hearing how bad a long, bitter struggle for the nomination would be for the party. And that's the only way Hillary can win. The only way for voters to try to head that off is to support Obama. I'd think people with only a weak preference for Hillary would consider that strongly.

    Parent
    yeah but the line is (none / 0) (#22)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:48:59 PM EST
    still that they are neck and neck, razor thin, so they think it could go either way.

    Parent
    but if you look in a mirror (none / 0) (#54)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:06:38 PM EST
    you can see the reverse!

    "that Democratic primary voters at this point have every incentive to desert Obama for Hillary, since it would be in the best interests of the party to settle the nomination quickly and cleanly."

    Until one or the other has a commanding lead, doesn't the logic work both ways?

    Parent

    yes i agree with you (none / 0) (#68)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:22:47 PM EST
    that was my point

    Parent
    LOL oh, that's right (none / 0) (#77)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:35:53 PM EST
    Don't vote your convictions, vote because Obama says he wants it.  Gotcha.

    Parent
    Incidents of the last 24 hours alone (none / 0) (#108)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:35:06 PM EST
    would suggest that there is need for vetting -- for both of the Obamas -- to see if real reservations grow.  So there is reason to wait for the process to take its time.  

    That ought to be especially important to those here who keep talking about the rules, as the rules are that this is decided at the convention, and based on results from all voters in this primary season.

    Parent

    I'm sorry, (4.00 / 3) (#23)
    by NJDem on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:49:28 PM EST
    but BO is "rolling the dice."  He may be able to fight the GOP, but there's just no evidence of that at this time--and the mud (and I mean real mud, not what's happening now) hasn't even begun.  

    In 2004 it was Kerry's to loose, and guess what, he did.  Who would have predicted a decorated war veteran would have been "swift-boated" by a man who basically dodged the draft.  

    I don't think Democrats should make the same mistake twice just because it's convenient. I will vote for him in the GE, but I'm not going to just hand it to him because it's easier to do so.

    Now, can anyone deny that HRC has been vetted and is a fighter who can/will take on the GOP?  And, it seems she's more popular with actual Democrats.

    So why is it assumed many moderate Independents/Repubs are going to go with BO when many have probably liked McCain for much longer than they've even known who BO is?  

    Since Florida, Michigan, Ohio and PA (1.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:46:34 PM EST
    are not a part of your calculus, it is rather laughable.

    You are ignoring 130 delegates.

    Plus, you do realize electoral votes are winner take all.

    It is really a silly exercise you have done.

    why is it so silly? (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:51:09 PM EST
    I think the point is that no matter who wins, Texas is still going to the GOP in the GE, and Calif/NY are going to the Dems, and that states that were close in 2004 should matter the most.

    But I think this whole thing is moot if most Obama supporters will support Clinton and vice versa (and the latest I read is that 79% of each will support the other).

    Parent

    Because the Electoral votes (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:53:26 PM EST
    are NOT apportioned. It is winner take all.

    Parent
    80% isn't very good (none / 0) (#61)
    by badger on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:10:46 PM EST
    If you assume the Dem base in most states is around 30%, then losing 20% is losing 6% of the total vote in the general election. For some big swing states (like OH, FL) or some smaller states that might replace them (VA, AR, IA, WI) that 6% may be more than the margin.

    If Kerry lost 20% of his WI base in 2004, he would have lost the state by 4-5% instead of winning it by 0.5%. He didn't win IA or VA or AR or OH or FL.

    The divisiveness supporters of all three of the major candidates (and the DNC) have created in this campaign is not a good thing for Dem chances in November.

    Parent

    all of the candidates were on the ballot (3.66 / 3) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:54:35 PM EST
    in Florida and a lot of voters PARTICIPATED in both states.

    But this is a DNC problem.

    In any event, not thinking about them for WHATEVER REASON is beyond stupid.


    Parent

    You can't ignore them (1.00 / 0) (#46)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:00:13 PM EST
    So what, you're not going to let FL or MI vote in the GE either? Pretty sure they're going to matter. How do you do an "analysis" of the GE without considering what will happen there?

    Parent
    That is true (none / 0) (#93)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:03:12 PM EST
    But has nothing to say about what needs to be done now for the good of the Democratic Party.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:02:00 PM EST
    You neeed to stay factual there.

    You were wrong on two points.

    I deleted both of those comments.

    Parent

    Here's the question: (none / 0) (#96)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:05:58 PM EST
    Can the Democratic party afford to alienate Florida to the extent that it is no longer purple and is solidly red?

    Parent
    Why the SWING states matter (none / 0) (#6)
    by AF on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:32:06 PM EST
    I agree, they matter.  And the big swing states matter more than the little ones.

    I thought McCain now had the advantage (none / 0) (#8)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:36:04 PM EST
    in FLA.

    Yes by 16 over Obama (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:47:03 PM EST
    but only 6 over clinton.

    Parent
    this situation is such a mess. (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:51:43 PM EST
    The DNC really needs to make friends with FLA and MI somehow.

    Parent
    I think that thought this is (none / 0) (#53)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:05:39 PM EST
    a bit tongue-in-cheek, I'm buying into the "threat" of Obama Comedown Syndrome talked about in the NY Times today:

    "How is a 47-year-old novice going to unify highly polarized 70-something committee chairs? What will happen if the nation's 261,000 lobbyists don't see the light, even after the laying on of hands? Does The Changemaker have the guts to take on the special interests in his own party -- the trial lawyers, the teachers' unions, the AARP? "

    Will Some Fire Engine Red States Become Blue (none / 0) (#55)
    by Saul on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:07:04 PM EST
    all of sudden under either of the democratic nominees in this general election?   I live in Texas and even though I do my civic duty to vote democratic in the presidential elections my vote is wasted. The state is fire engine red.  It would have been put to better use if I had registered in Ohio and avoided voting in Texas  where it would have counted more in 04.  Will my vote be wasted again in Texas in the 08 election. You only would have needed around 119000 votes in Ohio to get the EV to Kerry and the election in 04. Also Kerry should have demanded a full recount in Ohio but he never did.   I called the sectary of state in ohio and was surprised how easy it was to register there and vote without even going there. I could register online or by mail, min time 30 days before the election.  Did not need a home address in Ohio, could use the homeless shelter address, did not need a photo ID like a license, just my social security, could vote absentee and have them mail  my ballot to another address.  It would be a provisional ballot. All this they confirmed by phone.  Just go their web site and check it out or called them.  A thought hit me after I did this. Why couldn't a bunch of hard core democrats  not be rounded up from surroundings states of a critical state to go vote in those critical states which all the TV media already know who they are going be.  Most TV stations show the states that will decide the general elections approximately three months before the election.  So what no use this as strategy to win and prevent from you vote to be wasted.

    wonderful idea (none / 0) (#64)
    by HeadScratcher on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:14:50 PM EST
    Can you even imagine the backlash if something like this organized and succeeded?

    You'd probably have to go to the polling place and get a DNA test to verify who you were.

    Parent

    I believe that (none / 0) (#69)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:22:50 PM EST
    this election could yield much greater results for Democrats than people think possible, in many red states.

    Democrats may not win Texas but I don't think it is beyond reach for them to do so.  

    There are maybe 5 or 6 states that I think the Democrats simply can't win.  Other than that every state is possible.

    Parent

    why not? (none / 0) (#75)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:26:56 PM EST
    because it's fraud

    Parent
    Why is it fraud (none / 0) (#76)
    by Saul on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:33:55 PM EST
    I was wasn't hiding anything from the Sec of State offices in Ohio of what I wanted to accomplish when I talked to them.   They said it was ok. Plus it is on their web site. If you give up your right to vote in one state and go register in another state to vote that is absolutely legal. If their rules on how to accomplish that goal are very easy then so be it.

    Parent
    Generally speaking (none / 0) (#80)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:40:12 PM EST
    you are required to show proof of residency.  

    Parent
    Did you tell them you lived in Texas? (none / 0) (#81)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:40:48 PM EST
    Or did you tell them that your address was a homeless shelter in Ohio?

    Parent
    I told them (none / 0) (#89)
    by Saul on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:01:35 PM EST
    I did not want to permanently live in Ohio but could I live there as a homeless person.  They said yes you could and all you needed to do is use the homeless shelter as your official address. They confirmed to me that I did not have to live at the shelter for any specific time in order to vote.  I would at least have to go  go there and register at the homeless shelter in order to have their official address.  I asked them what if I have to leave Ohio after I register  for whatever reason and I am not there during the election to vote would you mail me an absentee ballot to any location.  They said yes.

    Parent
    yeah that would be fraud (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:09:07 PM EST
    You are not acting in good faith.  You are simply exploiting an exemption.

    Parent
    Were you living at the shelter? (none / 0) (#97)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:07:41 PM EST
    If not you exploited a policy meant to keep homeless people voting.

    Parent
    This never took place (none / 0) (#101)
    by Saul on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:17:02 PM EST
    It was just the results of my investigation what it would have taken by me or any other voter to register in Ohio. In fact when I called them I told I had wished I had registered in Ohio before the 04 election since my vote in Texas was wasted.  It was them who said well its not that hard to register here in Ohio.  Hence that is when I started asking them all these question and found out how easy it was if one wanted to register in Ohio.  You need to read my original post.

    Parent
    sigh I did (none / 0) (#102)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:18:39 PM EST
    It's still fraud, even if one is not busted for it.

    Parent
    It is only fraud (none / 0) (#105)
    by Saul on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:29:02 PM EST
    if something is illegal.  The secretary of state in Ohio says its ok so how can it be fraud.  All the cards are on the table nothing is being hidden from their eyes.

    Parent
    You have to live in Ohio (none / 0) (#106)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:30:35 PM EST
    at least temporarily to vote in Ohio.

    If you register at the homeless shelter, you are posing as someone who lives in Ohio but is homeless.

    Parent

    PS (none / 0) (#107)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:32:20 PM EST
    If they didn't care, then why is it necessary to register at the shelter at all?

    Really, it is this kind of thing that makes people want to require voter ID

    Parent

    If you dont believe me (none / 0) (#114)
    by Saul on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:42:19 PM EST
    then call them yourself just like I did. End of Story.

    Parent
    Its fraud. end of story. (none / 0) (#115)
    by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:45:28 PM EST


    Parent
    BTD what is your take on this (none / 0) (#60)
    by athyrio on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:10:26 PM EST
    Gallop tracking poll now swinging back to Clinton

    It's irrelevant (none / 0) (#65)
    by HeadScratcher on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:15:55 PM EST
    since 1/2 the states have already voted...

    Parent
    I don't believe (none / 0) (#67)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:20:09 PM EST
    you can derive anything meaningful to the GE from voting patterns in primaries.

    The dynamics are completely different.  Primaries are about electability.  General elections are about voter approval of the parties and politician.  

    If the economy has a recession before November  the Democrats could nominate Krusty the Clown and win the General.

    Perhaps if the general election was a popular vote there would be some merit.  But the Democrats are going to win CA, NJ, CT, MA, VT, MD, OR, WA, IL, WI, and MN. Those are in the bag.  MI and PA are most likely swinging towards the Dems.  

    OTOH, I don't think that results in the red states matter much.  Even though we are seeing higher turnout out in bright red states that doesn't necessarily translate to positive results in November.

    Obviously I disagree with the notion (none / 0) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:45:06 PM EST
    that you can derive nothing from how people will vote based on how THEY DID vote.

    Indeed, the rebuke is self evident.

    Parent

    But there is a big difference (none / 0) (#88)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:01:25 PM EST
    between the 2 votes, BTD.  

    In one case it is a matter of selecting between 2 people that largely represent the same thing.  In the other case it is a matter of selecting between 2 people with starkly differing views and opinions.

    At least 90% of primary voters will ultimately vote for the Democratic candidate no matter who it is.  So in states that are heavily blue the Dem is going to win.  

    If I run a poll in which I ask people to tell me whether they prefer vanilla or chocolate, how would the results help me to determine whether people prefer ice cream to cake?

    Parent

    Not true (none / 0) (#110)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:38:03 PM EST
    You seem to discount 10-15% of the vote (the amount either candidate might lose from the primary to the GE) as meaningless.

    These numbers decide elections.

    It is one of the main reasons I am strongly advocating for both of them on the ticket.

    Parent

    I guess I just don't (none / 0) (#120)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:50:20 PM EST
    that many people sitting out the election when it's time to vote in November.  

    Democrats who say they aren't voting because their guy/gal didn't get nominated are being petulant.  However 5 months of "bomb bomb Iran" will fix that problem.

    Parent

    Wisconsin not in the bag -- (none / 0) (#113)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:42:16 PM EST
    only 10 EVs, but just a note to not count on it.  Probable but not certain anymore.

    Parent
    We shall see (none / 0) (#118)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:48:51 PM EST
    but I think it will be an easy win for the Democrats.  

    Then again I believe this will be an easy win for the Democratic nominee regardless.

    Parent

    Cream why (none / 0) (#123)
    by athyrio on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:54:42 PM EST
    do you think this? What is your prediction?

    Parent
    Again, closest state in 2004 (none / 0) (#130)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 05:12:49 PM EST
    so closest blue state to turning red.  Dems here almost all in some urban strongholds, mainly Milwaukee, which has lost a lot of population -- white flighters -- since the Dem heyday here.

    Milwaukee has begun to grow again, per revised census results, but slowly . . . while continued white flight and other factors are growing the red counties around it.  Madison and some other blue cities grew more, but we'll see if that can hold -- i.e., if the economic recession either sends reds off to other states or brings them to their senses. :-)

    (Most of Wisconsin seems already in a recession, except for Madison and a few others reliant on our taxes for their economies more than on industry -- and with recent projections of tax revenue WAY down here, even they may not hold as well.)

    Parent

    Some good news for all of us (none / 0) (#82)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:41:45 PM EST
    from Rasmussen:

    LINK

    "If the Presidential election were held today, the Democratic candidate would be poised to win 284 Electoral Votes. That's 14 more than the minimum needed to capture the White House. The Republican candidate could expect to win 216 Electoral Votes while 38 more would be in the Toss-up category. "

    And 16 EVS (none / 0) (#91)
    by HeadScratcher on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:02:28 PM EST
    come from New Hampshire, Iowa and New Mexico - Small states that are easily in reach.

    Or, just Ohio.

    Parent

    This is all reflected in my post (none / 0) (#132)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 05:16:08 PM EST
    Why do you always want to avoid the post?

    Stop spamming with this and stick to the topic of the post.

    I am deleting this comment Tano. So stop doing this.

    Please stay on topic (none / 0) (#133)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 05:20:34 PM EST
    I just had to delete a ton of off topic comments.

    More of this and I am closing this thread.

    Why The Big States Matter | 117 comments (117 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment