home

Key States for Democrats in November

In 2004, the Democratic ticket carried 20 states with 252 electoral votes. Obviously, it wasn't enough. What other states are most likely to play a role in 2008? Which of the Democratic candidates would be the Party's most successful candidate in the general election?

William Arnone, a long-time Democratic Party activist who worked with Robert F. Kennedy in 1967-68 has updated his July, 2007 analysis of "Key States in the 2008 Presidential Election."

The ten states are: Arkansas; Colorado; Florida; Iowa; Missouri; Nevada; New Mexico; North Carolina; Ohio; and Virginia.

With his permission, I reprint his newest analysis below:

"Key States in the 2008 Presidential Election." By William Arnone

This is an update on the "Key States in the 2008 Presidential Election" analysis I circulated last July. These are states in which the Democratic Presidential ticket needs to compete effectively in November in order to have a good chance of being elected. The Democratic Presidential ticket must win one or more of these key states, in addition to the 20 states with 252 electoral votes carried by the Democratic Presidential ticket in 2004.

Here's an update on the ten key states: Arkansas; Colorado; Florida; Iowa; Missouri; Nevada; New Mexico; North Carolina; Ohio; and Virginia.

  • Arkansas (6 electoral votes): Hillary Clinton won with 70% of the vote (202,010) to Barack Obama's 27% (77,970) in this state's February 5th open primary. Since Independents were able to vote, it may be viewed as an especially good indicator of the Democratic candidates' potential appeal in November. Arkansas has voted for the winners of the last nine Presidential elections. Bill Clinton and Al Gore carried the state by 17% in 1996 and by 18% in 1992. Since 1964, the only other Presidential election in which the Democratic ticket carried the state was 1976, when Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale won with a huge margin of 30%.
  • Colorado (9 electoral votes): Obama won with 67% of the vote (79,344) to Clinton's 32% (38,587) in this state's February 5th closed caucuses. The Republican Presidential ticket carried Colorado by 5% in 2004. This was a lower margin than the 2000 election, in which the Republican ticket carried the state by almost 9%. The Republican ticket carried the state by 1% in 1996. Bill Clinton and Al Gore carried the state by 4% in 1992. Colorado has voted Democratic in Presidential elections only three times since Franklin Roosevelt’s candidacies: Clinton-Gore in ’92; Johnson-Humphrey in ’64; and Truman-Barkley in ’48.
  • Florida (27 electoral votes): Clinton won 50% of the vote (865,099) to Obama's 33% (571,333) in this state's January 29th closed nonbinding primary. The Republican Presidential ticket carried Florida by 5% in 2004. This was a higher margin than the 2000 election, in which the Republican ticket carried the state by less than 1% (537 votes) in a highly controversial election. Overall, the Republican ticket carried 58 of the state’s 67 counties in 2004. Bill Clinton and Al Gore carried the state by 6% in 1996. The Republican ticket carried the state by 2% in 1992 and by 22% in 1988. Florida has voted for the Democratic Presidential ticket only three times since 1964: Johnson-Humphrey with 51% in 1964; Carter-Mondale with 52% in 1976; and Clinton-Gore with 48% in 1996. Republicans have not won the White House without winning Florida since 1924.
  • Iowa (7 electoral votes): Obama won 38% of the vote to Clinton's 29% in this state's January 3rd open proportional caucuses on. (The Iowa Democratic Party has not released the actual vote count.) The Republican Presidential ticket carried Iowa by 1% in 2004. This was the first time the Republican ticket carried the state since 1984. The Democratic ticket carried the state by .032 percentage points in 2000. Bill Clinton and Al Gore carried the state by 10% in 1996 and by 6% in 1992. The Democratic ticket carried the state by 10% in 1988, which represented the largest Democratic margin since 1964, when the Johnson-Humphrey ticket carried Iowa with a margin of 24%.
  • Missouri (11 electoral votes): Obama won 49% of the vote (405,284) to Clinton's 48% (395,287) in this state's February 5th open primary. Since Independents were able to vote, it may be viewed as an especially good indicator of the Democratic candidates' potential appeal in November. The Republican Presidential ticket carried Missouri by 7% in 2004. This was a higher margin than the 2000 election, in which the Republican ticket carried the state by 3%. Bill Clinton and Al Gore carried this state in 1996 by 6% and in 1992 by 10%. With one exception (1952), Missouri has voted with the winner of every Presidential election since 1900. No other state has this record of accuracy in Presidential elections.
  • Nevada (5 electoral votes): Clinton won 51% of the vote (approximately 59,000) to Obama's 45% (approximately 52,000) in this state's January 19th closed proportional caucuses. The Republican Presidential ticket carried Nevada by 3% in 2004. This was a lower margin than the 2000 election in which the Republican ticket carried the state by 4%. Bill Clinton and Al Gore carried the state by 1% in 1996 and by 3% in 1992. Since 1964, Nevada has voted for the Republican Presidential ticket, except for Clinton-Gore in 1992 and 1996.
  • New Mexico (5 electoral votes): Clinton won 49% of the vote (68,084) to Obama's 48% (67,010) in this state's February 5th closed primary. New Mexico has had the two closest most recent Presidential elections. In 2004, the Republican Presidential ticket carried the state by approximately 6,800 votes (less than 1%). In 2000, the Democratic Presidential ticket carried the state by 365 votes (.006 percentage points). Bill Clinton and Al Gore carried the state by almost 8% in 1996 and by 9% in 1992. The Republican ticket carried the state by 5% in 1988, which had been the sixth consecutive Presidential election in which the Republican ticket carried New Mexico.
  • Virginia (13 electoral votes): Obama won 64% of the vote (620,919) to Clinton's 35% (344,477) in this state's February 12th open primary. Since Independents were able to vote, it may be viewed as an especially good indicator of the Democratic candidates' potential appeal in November. The Republican Presidential ticket carried Virginia by 9% in 2004. This was a slightly higher margin than the 2000 election in which the Republican ticket carried the state by 8%. The Republican ticket carried the state by 2% in 1996 and by 4% in 1992. Since 1964, the Democratic ticket has not carried the state, but the margins have often been close.

Of the ten key states, two have yet to hold their primaries. They are:

  • Ohio (20 electoral votes): This state's open Democratic Presidential primary will be held on March 4th. The Republican Presidential ticket carried Ohio by 2% in 2004. This was a slightly lower margin than the 2000 election in which the Republican ticket carried the state by less than 4%. Bill Clinton and Al Gore carried the state by 6% in 1996 and by 2% in 1992. No Republican has ever been elected President without carrying Ohio.
  • North Carolina (15 electoral votes): This state's Democratic Presidential primary will be held on May 6th. The Republican Presidential ticket carried North Carolina by 12% in 2004. This was a slightly lower margin than the 2000 election in which the Republican ticket carried the state by 13%. The Republican ticket carried the state by 5% in 1996 and by less than 1% in 1992. Since 1964, the Democratic Presidential ticket has carried this state only once – Carter-Mondale by 11% in 1976.

The winner of the popular vote in the Democratic primary or caucus in each of these key states will have a higher likelihood of carrying that state in November. This is a critical consideration in determining who is likely to be the Party's most successful Presidential candidate in the general election.

Thus far, Hillary Clinton has won four of these key states -- Arkansas (decisively), Florida (decisively, but in a primary that was not recognized by the Democratic National Committee for the purpose of selecting delegates to the Party's convention), Nevada (solidly), New Mexico (slightly) -- and Barack Obama has won four -- Colorado (decisively), Iowa (solidly), Missouri (slightly), and Virginia (decisively). Of these states, Clinton's four have a total of 43 electoral votes, while Obama's four have a total of 40 electoral votes. Together with all of the 20 states that went Democratic in the 2004 Presidential election, both Clinton's and Obama's key states would have enough electoral votes to give the Democratic Presidential ticket victory in November.

This analysis does not assess, however, the possibility that the Republican Presidential ticket, if headed by John McCain, might win one or more of the 20 states that went Democratic in 2004.

Thanks to Mr. Arnone for letting us reprint this. Now, what do you all think?

< The First Two Questions | John Lewis Switches Support to Obama >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Arkansas (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:17:41 PM EST
    this is my home state.
    it is my strong belief that if Obama is the nominee we will not get this one.
    not only because of the things discussed in earlier threads but because there is much affection there for the Clintons a MUCH outrage at what has been dont to her.


    His point is (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:28:12 PM EST
    assuming we won the same states Dems won in 2004, what else is needed? He's analyzing the remaining states.

    The question is, which of the candidates, Hillary or Obama, is most likely to result in a different result in in these states in 2008.

    He says he is not factoring in states that Dems won in 2004 but might lose this time.

    I think he did a lot of work here. Maybe he'll do a followup on Dem states that could switch, but it's not foolish of him to present this analysis.

    I thought it interesting that (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:32:05 PM EST
    Texas and PA aren't on the list. Ohio is.

    Well, if McCain loses in Texas... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:48:10 PM EST
    ... he'll be buried under an LBJ/Goldwater style landslide, and any electoral analysis would be unnecessary.

    And PA isn't on the list because Kerry won there.

    Parent

    Kerry won many; PA is not on the list (none / 0) (#21)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:50:10 PM EST
    because a Dem will win there. (Future tense.)

    Parent
    No, the list is only 2004 Bush wins. (none / 0) (#22)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:53:00 PM EST
    Hopefully, the Democrat will win in PA this time, but I think it's more likely to go Republican than some of the other states on the list are to go Democratic.

    Parent
    That is interesting -- PA is on the cusp? (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:55:49 PM EST
    That adds to my concerns. That's a lot more EC votes than the states that already worried me.

    Parent
    Ah, just caught your comment upthread (none / 0) (#26)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:56:54 PM EST
    and see what you mean. Thanks. I'll be watching for more.

    Parent
    Good point. Smart super-d's will be watching (none / 0) (#19)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:48:39 PM EST
    it closely, county by county, I suspect . . . as it will be a semi-open primary, but smart super-d's will know which counties to watch and how to assess crossover's short-term impact but focus on long-term meanings for fall. So Ohio may, if they agree with Arnone, have more meaning for fall and for what to do than the other states up next.

    Parent
    PA is one of the 'holds' while TX is a (none / 0) (#20)
    by Geekesque on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:49:19 PM EST
    gravy state--if we win it, it's gravy.

    Parent
    Win TEXAS?? (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by zyx on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:49:57 PM EST
    Someone is seriously into silly season!

    Parent
    Yes, win Texas (none / 0) (#49)
    by RiderOnTheStorm on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:18:37 PM EST
    I pointed this out earlier today.  It's well worth reading through in its entirety, because it reports the situation on the ground there as of now. The gist is that turnout is through the roof and NOT because of crossover voting.  We'll see in a week what final numbers look like -- but I expect them to be huge.  If that can be turned into momentum for November, then, yes, Texas is in play.

    And if even the Democrat doesn't win: putting it play forces the Republican nominee to expend resources there.

    The key states in November are all of them -- yes, even Florida.

    Parent

    Dallas County (none / 0) (#56)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:56:28 PM EST
    is not Texas.  Dallas County is backward of the MetroPlex.  

    Parent
    I know people in Texas (none / 0) (#67)
    by zyx on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:24:32 PM EST
    who will be energized and pumped to vote for Obama--or Clinton.  And there will be a lot of people I DON'T know who will turn out to vote--more, probably, for Obama.  

    That said, there will be a big turnout on the other side to vote agin 'em, I have no doubt whatever.

    And I don't think it's just because Bush was a favorite son that Texas was 61-38 in '04.  I lived in a rural area and would read my precinct voting statistics on the day after and just marvel that I'd been in line and in a building with so many Republicans.  I mean, they were just ALL Republicans.  Texas has a major infestation.  And Obama isn't going to reach out to their sort.

    Parent

    The infestation is large (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:32:33 PM EST
    that's for sure.  You're right in that the favorite son had nothing to do with Kerry's loss here in '04.  He became reviled by republicans in my acquaintance.  I believe the same thing will happen to the democrat this election as well.  Either one of them.

    I lived in Plano for a long time and was literally the only democrat in my neighborhood.  During elections, yard signs would go up for competing republicans in primaries but I never saw a democrat's yard sign, ever.  It was spooky but a nice neighbohood  :-)


    Parent

    Yeah... (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by zyx on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 09:50:08 PM EST
    I lived in Brazos County--Bryan/College Station, for many years.  

    Texas is just really, really Republican.  The people are very Christian and very conservative and very...Republican.  Many of them are quite nice and mean well and will help you out if you need a hand, but they are going to vote Republican every time, whether they think very much about politics on a very layered level or not.  And you aren't going to change many of their minds with phone banks and that kind of thing.

    Parent

    I also think Texas... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 07:18:30 PM EST
    ... is a big place, and expensive to really make a push in. Obama ought to have plenty of money, but realistically, talk of running all out in 50 states is just talk. It's pretty likely his campaign won't make the initial heavy investment needed to put the state in play, just like McCain most likely will not do in California.

    Parent
    50 state strategy (none / 0) (#71)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:28:59 PM EST
    is largely talk I think you're right.  McCain may not have to spend in CA.  I read that the Freedom Watch 527 currently has over $200 million ready to go.


    Parent
    Projecting based on past experience (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Joike on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:10:49 PM EST
    At this point, we are not in any position to meaningfully the GE dynamics on a state by state basis.

    It's as useful as listening to some jock run some mock draft into the 3rd round.  Too much is going to shift around in the next couple of months.

    Another flaw in our nomination process is the amount of time between when the nominee is selected and the conventions (let alone November).

    People may say Florida is not in play for Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton, but what if Bill Richardson is the VP candidate?

    That could put Florida right back in play.  What if Sen. McCain selected Gov. Crist of FL?  What if he selected Gov. Pawlenty from here in Minnesota.  That could put a blue state in play.

    What if Sen. McCain is forced to adhere to public financing rules and can't spend money between now and the convention?  He'd be at a serious disadvantage.  Fine by me.

    What if the Sen. Clinton pulls an amazing upset next Tuesday?

    The eventual nominee needs to run a 50 state race and not get hung up on the math that gets them to 270 electoral votes.

    There are a lot of great prospects for us in the House and Senate in '08.  We have a shot at a Texas Senate seat for crying out loud.  Our candidate doesn't need to run a slash and burn - 50% + 1 campaign.

    Sen. McCain may have no choice but to do that.  Given that a majority of Americans favor the positions of our candidates, he will be forced to beat the drum of fear hoping to scare enough people into voting for him.  National security is his only strength and even on that count most Americans disagree with his position on Iraq.

    Sen. McCain has ridden the surge to the GOP nomination.  As the year wears on and the troops are still stuck in Iraq and our military continues to get worn down by poor leadership, his strength could become a weakness.  Even he has admitted as much.

    I am afraid (4.00 / 2) (#36)
    by standingup on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:27:07 PM EST
    Missouri will be a very tough state for Obama to pull off in the general.  It's my home state and I am concerned that the rural vote may be a problem for him.  He will easily carry St. Louis and Kansas City but the rest of the state is a toss up.  McCaskill barely beat Talent in 2006.  Her approval ratings, 48% in November, lead me to think that her ability to help Obama in the general will be limited.  

    From MO Also (none / 0) (#50)
    by MO Blue on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:28:56 PM EST
    During the MO primary, Obama won only the Democratic counties. Clinton won all the other counties.

    From my POV, an endorsement from McCaskill is not a plus unless you like Dem Senators voting with the Republicans on Iraq and FISA.

    Parent

    I know McCain (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by standingup on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:47:32 PM EST
    split the votes with Huckabee and Romney in the primary but don't sense there is a strong resistance to McCain here either.  I have only heard one of the Republicans I know say that she was so put out at Bush that she would be voting for the Democratic candidate this year.  

    I also believe Republican turnout will be boosted in November with the Governor's race up for grabs.  Nixon might have a tighter race than expected with Blunt out of the running.    

    Parent

    Missouri may be (none / 0) (#65)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:45:30 PM EST
    where Obama can best use his support among African Americans in a RedState....He could get a very heavy turnout from St. Louis and Kansas City.....

    Didn't Obama carry McCaskill over the finish line in 2006?

    Parent

    I understand his analysis (1.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:19:07 PM EST
    looks only at states Dems did not carry, but it is foolish to not include states Dems narrowly won like Wisconsin, NH, PA and Michigan.

    I Think He Admits that as much (none / 0) (#3)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:23:42 PM EST
    In the last paragraph.

    Good point, I think it's conceded already in the text above.


    Parent

    Is their evidence (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jgarza on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:28:23 PM EST
    either candidate would loose those states?

    Parent
    There is probably reason for concern about PA... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:46:21 PM EST
    ...given that Obama trails Hillary there. Doesn't mean he wouldn't win, but I'd think it's less than certain.

    Parent
    what? (none / 0) (#29)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:02:18 PM EST
    Sorry... but the fact that Obama is currently trailing in PA does not mean that there is evidence that Obama would lose to McCain there.  

    Obama lost to Clinton in CA and NY, do you think that means he will lose those two?

    Parent

    No, but those are not barely-blue states... (none / 0) (#31)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:13:07 PM EST
    ... and PA is. I'm not predicting doom and gloom there, but if the Democrats in the state are only mildly enthusiastic about Obama, it's certainly possible for him to lose there.

    Parent
    The gap... (none / 0) (#34)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:23:19 PM EST
    ... is quickly closing, as it has in all of the other recent states.

    But even if a gap remains (and I think Clinton will have dropped out before PA), preferring Clinton over Obama is not the same thing as preferring McCain over Obama.


    Parent

    Pa (none / 0) (#57)
    by MichaelGale on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:57:01 PM EST
    and I strongly expect that Pa will vote Republican if Obama is the nominee.

    Pittsburgh is pretty Republican already and Philly is various shades of blue.  In between they are mostly red with exception of college towns. The people I have talked too still do not see that much wrong with Bush.  Rendall won because both he and Casey were known and that is in the comfort zone.

    I'm betting PA will go red.

    Parent

    perhaps... (none / 0) (#61)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:13:42 PM EST
    ... but I think that has little/nothing to do with whether Obama or Clinton win PA, which was my point.

    The argument was made that because Clinton is beating Obama in PA polls, that means that PA could go red.

    PA could go red, but that will probably be despite the candidate and not because of the candidate.

    Parent

    Barely-blue is RIGHT (none / 0) (#51)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:29:20 PM EST
    State Information
    U.S. Senate Delegation: 1 Democrat, 1 Republican
    U.S. House Delegation: 11 Democrats, 8 Republicans

    Senators
    Sen. Arlen Specter, R
    First Elected: 1980 (5th term)
    Last Elected: 2004 (52.62%)
    Sen. Bob Casey, D
    First Elected: 2006 (1st term)
    Last Elected: 2006 (58.68%)

    The Gov & State House is Dem but the Stae Sen is Repub

    Here is a good inter-active map for information about the elections. Click on the states and you can find info fo that state.

    MAP

    Parent

    California is where (none / 0) (#39)
    by DaleA on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:43:43 PM EST
    the problem may be. Obama ran poorly among four major voting groups here: Latinos, Asians, Native Americans and Gay & Lesbian voters. Hillary had over 60% support in each community. The only Republican who would have a chance with these groups is McCain. He has some appeal among Latinos, Asians, Native Americans. And is not feared by Gays and Lesbians. Choosing Obama might put California into play.

    Parent
    I think Obama may have to put some resources... (none / 0) (#41)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:50:22 PM EST
    ... into California, which could hurt him elsewhere. But I don't really think that he'll be in any danger of losing there if he works at it.

    Parent
    Agreed. Look at losing Iowa (none / 0) (#9)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:30:49 PM EST
    and it could happen across the river in Wisconsin, closest state last time. I'm glad that is noticed here, btw -- I tried for years over at Big Orange to raise concern about its steady decline for Dems, but the constant reply was that I live in a progressive state. Yeh, silly me, how could I not take comfort in a century ago . . . when it was a myth, even then. (Let us remember that La Follette and his progressives were a splinter group of Republicans.) Of course, Arnone explicitly states at the start and end that the 20 states won last time must be held, and that is material for another analysis. Or for us to think about, too, as BTD suggests. Thank you, Jeralyn, for this -- and for the extra step of getting permission to give all this to us (as only part of it hardly would tell the tale).

    Parent
    Well, in the case of IA and WI Obama (none / 0) (#18)
    by Geekesque on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:48:30 PM EST
    is without a doubt the better bet to hold those states.

    Iowans just plain love Obama, and Wisconsinites seem to like him just fine as well.

    Parent

    I cannot be confident of that (none / 0) (#23)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:54:38 PM EST
    because one was a caucus and one an open primary. And because I live in one and close to the other; do you? I was able to read a lot of accounts of Iowa caucuses and talk to participants, and that caused concerns. I also am able to read county-by-county the Wisconsin results as well as a lot of accounts, before and after, and that causes less confidence than the blowout numbers may suggest to others. I think they will go Dem. But I thought, frankly, that they were in the bag for Dems, as well as the White House . . . until recently. Now I have increasingly serious concerns.

    Parent
    Head to head polling from Iowa (none / 0) (#27)
    by Geekesque on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:59:10 PM EST
    and Wisconsin show Obama beating McCain comfortably in each state:

    Link.

    Parent

    Polls (none / 0) (#38)
    by clapclappointpoint on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:43:41 PM EST
    don't count. Votes don't count. Obviously, you haven't been paying attention here.  The only thing that counts is faith in HRC.

    Obama can't win any state he's won a primary or caucus or poll in because he just can't.  Hillary, on the other hand, will win the vote of every registered Dem in the state while denouncing or even rejecting the crossover independents who want to meddle in our general election.

    Parent

    Polls six months out vs. local media (none / 0) (#42)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:54:36 PM EST
    that haven't yet unleashed their barrage . . . sorry, I've seen it before too often here. Polls looked good this far out for Dems before here.

    Parent
    I am fom Wis. as well (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by kenosharick on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 08:59:39 PM EST
    (live in Ga. now) and agree with Cream City. Obama will have way more trouble holding Wis.(and winning Iowa) than Hillary.

    Parent
    Agreed (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:59:51 PM EST
    But MI and PA? No.

    Parent
    He hasn't appeared on the ballot (none / 0) (#30)
    by Geekesque on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:05:34 PM EST
    in MI or PA yet.  Whereas, IA and WI have had meaningful votes, and Obama thumped Clinton in both places.

    Moreover, head-to-head polling shows Obama beating McCain in IA, WI, and PA, while Clinton loses all three states to McCain in the same polls.

    Parent

    Never will in MI (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:14:45 PM EST
    in the primary. So what info do we have?

    As for PA, he may not have a meaningful primary there either.

    As for FLORIDA, he id dead. Thank you Donna Brazile. thank You Howard Dean.

    Parent

    The FL Dem party hardly basked (none / 0) (#44)
    by Geekesque on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:56:46 PM EST
    in glory either.  They were eagerly pushing the FL legislature to change to primary date.

    They decided to play chicken with the DNC, and the result was a car wreck.

    Parent

    A caucus just isn't a meaningful vote (none / 0) (#43)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:56:32 PM EST
    to me. Nor is an open primary. I remember too well how well George Wallace did in an open primary in Wisconsin as well as many crossover campaigns since. You want to take comfort in those, your call.

    Parent
    Next season (none / 0) (#46)
    by clapclappointpoint on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:11:05 PM EST
    we should have the CreamCity-certified primary. It's not fair to have the state parties get to choose how they want to allot delegates.

    Parent
    Huh? You obviously do not understand (none / 0) (#48)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:18:10 PM EST
    then, what is meant by an open primary -- and what can be the result, when it is hardly Dem voters whose numbers allot Dem delegates. Or you're a George Wallace fan. Which is it?

    Parent
    No, really (none / 0) (#52)
    by clapclappointpoint on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:31:04 PM EST
    I think we should extend your ideas about enforcing party loyalty to the general election.  We should only allow registered Dems to vote for Dems in November.

    Why would we want any independents (ugh!) voting for our candidate?

    Parent

    I want Independents to commit (none / 0) (#60)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:12:02 PM EST
    to voting for us in primaries . . . and in November. I do NOT want Republicans crossing over in the primary, as they did in my state, to pick our candidate -- and then go back to beat ours in fall. You do want that? Why?

    Parent
    I also want (1.00 / 0) (#62)
    by clapclappointpoint on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:35:19 PM EST
    a pony, but wishing doesn't make it so. At some point many of the state and local parties across the country decided that the best way to build the party was either to (a) to hold an open primary or (b) hold a caucus.  Some

    Obviously, you know something that all of these state parties don't, so maybe you should help them out next time and establish a Cream City-certification for their primaries.  That way, you can get your opinion in BEFORE the elections, rather than just whining about how everything is UNFAIR to your candidate after the fact.

    Parent

    Look, caucuses are cheap and (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by hairspray on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:32:18 PM EST
    they don't cost the state any money. So the Party runs the caucuses and does it as economically as possible.  The Washington State primary results which had Obama beating Hillary by 1-2% compared to the lopsided 60-35 (something like that) of the caucus should tell you something if you will open your eyes.  Just because everyone knew that was how it was going to be doesn't make it right.  Another thing about the Washington primary from a friend of mine, who chose not to vote was that the delegates were already chosen so why bother.  

    Parent
    Obviously, you don't get what (none / 0) (#75)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:24:44 AM EST
    I'm saying. I'm in an open primary state, I know the history here -- no doubt better than you do -- and I don't see why that means I'm supposed to like it. It certainly wasn't cause for you to launch an ad hominem attack, claiming I was whining, while you resort to SHOUTING. Cool it here.

    Parent
    The parties sometimes choose wrongly (none / 0) (#77)
    by shoephone on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:21:21 PM EST
    and sometimes they only have unappealing choices before them.

    Here in WA, the Democratic party leaders say the only reason they allot delegates through the caucus is because the primary is open and they fear too much mischief from Repubs crossing over and playing "Dems for a Day". The party leaders have said they would switch to a primary in a second if the voters could be verified as being Democrats. Since we don't have party registration here, and the state supreme court has upheld the so-called "independence" of our voters, one would suspect the system isn't likely to change very soon -- even though many Dem voters HATE the caucus system.

    But then comes the fly in the ointment: The SCOTUS just decided in favor of a "top two" primary for WA and now both state parties are freaking out.

    I grew up (and began voting) in California, which had party registration and a closed primary. Made perfect sense to me. The purpose of primaries is so that parties -- and the voters who actually belong to parties -- can choose their own nominees.

    The only system that is legitimate is a closed primary and I don't have the patience to go through the list of reasons. The reasons have already been cited on this blog by many commenters, ad nauseum.

    Parent

    Hmmm (none / 0) (#4)
    by AF on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:27:16 PM EST
    The winner of the popular vote in the Democratic primary or caucus in each of these key states will have a higher likelihood of carrying that state in November.

    By this logic, Mitt Romney would have had a better chance of winning CO, NV and MI than McCain, and Huckabee would have a better chance of winning Iowa.  I find those conclusions dubious at best.  And therefore question the logic.

    Thanks for posting this (none / 0) (#7)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:29:24 PM EST
    a welcome remedy to all the nonsense about how bad a nominee Obama would be because he lost NY and CA to Hillary.

    It is, always, about the swing states. And the swing voters in the swing states.

    Of this list, I honestly don't think that either of our candidates will win FL, nor NC.

    VA might be possible for Obama, but McCain matches up well there. Ark should be doable for Hillary, more difficult for Obama. CO seems doable for Obama, more difficult for Hillary.

    NM, NV, MO will be very close either way. Personally I think Obama would be the better candidate because he pf his appeal to indies and Reps. We dont win those states without raiding their territory, and I dont see Hillary doing so.

    Iowa we should win either way.
    I actually think that we win OH and PA either way. I actually think we are going to win in November either way.

    JGarza's attempt (none / 0) (#11)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:33:56 PM EST
    to mischaracterize Florida and redirect the thread topic has been deleted -- as have comments to it.

    Don't do it again.

    give me a break (none / 0) (#12)
    by Jgarza on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:42:27 PM EST
    was Florida not given as evidence in this post, of Hillary having a better chance of winning it?  Is the campaign situation in Florida in the fall also going to include a ban on campaigning.

    SO explain to me why its so terrible that I point out, Hillary "winning" Florida isn't the best evidence to use to predict who has the best chance of winning in November?  

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:44:20 PM EST
    What is ironic is that Obama's been tarred with your argument - that the 1.7MM votes in Florida did not count.

    The DNC has cost Obama any chance of winning Florida.

    Parent

    did i say it (none / 0) (#25)
    by Jgarza on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:56:44 PM EST
    doesn't count.  now you are putting words in my mouth.  I said the situation isn't realistic, so it evidence that she can win their.  Silly season talk left style, to attack me for pointing that out.

    Parent
    Not what you said before -- it was (none / 0) (#13)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:44:02 PM EST
    incorrect. Thank you, Jeralyn.

    Parent
    no cigar (none / 0) (#16)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:47:55 PM EST
    that's not what you said before. You tried to move everyone into an argument about the Florida primary and prefaced it with a false statement.

    You are warned. Drop the Florida primary.

    Parent

    This ignores (none / 0) (#33)
    by fladem on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:22:17 PM EST
    evidence of significant leakage in the Pacific Northwest, where Clinton trails in both Oregon and Washington.

    I have no idea how people think we are going to carry North Carolina when we didn't get close with Edwards on the ticket.

    Florida is tilting republican - as even a brief review of the statewide races in '06 will show.

    The map at this point does not look that good for us, particularly if Clinton is the nominee.  

    However, (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Lena on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:36:51 PM EST
    if Clinton were the nominee, she would have a better shot here than Obama - especially if she plays up the fact that she was agitating for the seating of our delegates.

    Obama, I believe, has no chance here.

    Parent

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by MichaelGale on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:05:52 PM EST
    Clinton would carry in south Florida most likely. North Florida, the panhandle and east loves Tom Feeney!  Do you really think they would vote for Obama.  Plus many of those cities were the experts on vote change and voting irregularities.

    You have to remember that Jeb Bush maintained high poll numbers even with the Schiavo mess.

    Lord.  We are one of the few states that have a Right to Life license plate and a new one on the way...celebrate the Civil war with the confederate flag.

    Parent

    I keep returning to my point of (none / 0) (#35)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:24:31 PM EST
    noone is addressing the fact that Obama is just now starting to receive any vetting at all and once he is nominated they will pour it on and those numbers will all change drastically....IMO....The numbers for Sen.Clinton are after they have thrown every thing at her but the kitchen sink....big big difference...Pat Buchanan keeps saying that it will take the GOP exactly two weeks to take out Obama...That should worry all of us...

    Not sure I agree with Buchanan (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:54:10 PM EST
    about the two weeks part.  It could take a month. :-)

    Parent
    I was saying 3 weeks. (none / 0) (#59)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:07:59 PM EST
    It'll certainly be interesting.

    Another interesting phenomenon is which will win, the Southern Strategy (Republicans), or the "reverse Southern Strategy" (Obama)?

    Parent

    I'm not sure that McCain (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:42:01 PM EST
    will really run a "Southern Strategy".  If I can guess, I imagine he'll let 527s run that part of the campaign while he goes for Ohio, PA, FL, and hangs onto the mountain west.  Chances are also decent that he'll make Obama spend some money winning CA.

    Interesting that CNN this afternoon was running stories that the Democratic candidate may be weighted down by their promises to pull out of Iraq.   Kind of odd but I imagine they have a reason.


    Parent

    It'll be run (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:23:52 PM EST
    even if the surrogates run it.

    I don't think any candidate will get us out of Iraq until the pressure is so overwhelming that that they'll have no choice.

    None of the candidates will want to own what Iraq will become when we get out.

    Parent

    I agree about Iraq (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:25:19 PM EST
    Any of the 3 candidates will have no choice but to withdraw in two or three more years.  The military will almost certainly be too broken to keep it up.  The main difference I think would be what happens in the leadup to pulling out.  Got no clue about that.

    Oh yeah, 527s will run southern strategy into the ground I imagine.  I also would predict it works as always.

    Parent

    Tie in November? (none / 0) (#47)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:14:31 PM EST
    If the Democratic Nominee wins all the states that Gore won, plus New Hampshire (which Kerry won), plus Nevada, we would have a tie in the electoral college, and the House of Representatives would decide the election.....

    That could happen with Nevada trending Democratic....

    The House breaks the tie with each state having only one vote.....Just how would that come down?  

    I think that favors the GOP, unfortunately (none / 0) (#54)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:52:26 PM EST
    I believe they are in the majority in more delegations, since so many House Democrats come from big states.

    Parent
    Dems are lucky (none / 0) (#63)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:35:31 PM EST
    After doing some tallying, the Dems hold the majority of the current house seats in 28 states, including the District of Columbia.  The Rs have the majority in 20 states.  And there is a tie in Arizona, Kansas and Mississippi.  Arizona and Kansas have Democratic governors...but who knows how to break such a tie....

    So, Obama or Hillary would win 28-20, with three ties.....given the current make-up of the House.

    There a couple of surprises in terms of which states the Dems have majorities in House delegations: Colorado, Indiana, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, West Virginia.  In other words, thank god for Redstate Dems.....

    New Mexico is currently a Republican majority but should switch to the Dems....2-1.  The Republicans have a majority in the Michigan delegation....

    Parent

    Good research and good news if . . . (none / 0) (#76)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:27:31 AM EST
    . . . we hang onto those seats or even gain new ones -- as all 435 seats are up this year, I understand. And that is why the candidate with coattails matters -- why we need voters who know to vote all the way down the ballot, who are versed in all the races. I.e., Dems.

    Parent
    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#78)
    by shoephone on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:33:25 PM EST
    What do you think of the possibility of Colorado going blue in November, for either Clinton or Obama? Is is realistic? It's my sense that CO is only grudgingly turning blue, and partly because some of the state-wide Republican politicians have become embarrassingly reactionary.