The New Hampshire discussion got me thinking about state trends in presidential elections. To keep the data recent I looked at elections from 1972 -2000. I wanted to see of there is a trend in state voting to try and predict what we might see in 2004. So here is the data: States were graded on a scale of strong trend, moderate, lean, and toss up. There are not a lot of surprises when looking at Strong Republican states: Alabama Alaska Idaho Indiana Kansas Mississippi Nebraska North Carolina North Dakota Oklahoma South Carolina South Dakota Texas Utah Virginia Wyoming These states voted at least 87.5% of the time for the Republican Candidate and 11 out 16 voted for the Republican candidate in every Presidential election since 1972. These states should give Bush 135 electoral votes. The following are states that strongly trend towards the Democratic Candidate: Wash. D.C. Hawaii Massachusetts Minnesota Rhode Island That’s it! 33 electoral votes that can be considered as a lock for Dean; although only D.C voted 100% of the time for the Democratic candidate. Another trend that became apparent was that there are several Moderate Republican trended states and NO leaning Republican states, while there were NO Moderate Democratic states and several leaning Democratic states. The states that will most likely go to Bush are: Arizona Colorado Florida (I got my eye on this one, he he) Montana Nevada New Hampshire These states deliver 58 probable electoral votes to Bush. Since there are no leaning Republican states this brings Bushes total to 193. States that lean to the Democratic side, especially in the last 4 elections are: California Connecticut Delaware Illinois Iowa Maine Maryland Michigan New Jersey New Mexico New York Oregon Pennsylvania Vermont Washington Wisconsin So, If Dean were to win EVERY state that leans Democrat, he would pick up 227 electoral votes. Obviously this will be a daunting task, but trends do sway in his parties favor. So with the score now 193 Probables to a solid 33 plus an iffy 227, Dean would lead Bush 260 to 193. Here are the “toss up” states: Arkansas: Normally republican, this state shifted with Clinton but in 2000 went back to Bush. It really should be considered at least a leaning Republican with its 6 electoral votes. Georgia: a 37.5 - 62.5 Republican trender that voted or Dole and Bush in the last two elections. 15 electoral votes there. Although the original study says it is a toss up stat, I tend to disagree again. Kentucky: another 37.5 to 62.5 to the Repubs. Went with Clinton twice then back to Bush. 8 more votes for Bush? I tend to think so. Louisiana: See Kentucky. Same voting record. Another 9 for Bush. Missouri: Same damn thing. Another 11 for Bush. Ohio: Déjà vu all over again. 20 here. Tennessee: Ask Al Gore about this one: Same voting record as the others in this list. 11 votes. West Virginia: OK, here the trend goes the other way, 62.5% for Dems, 37.5 for Republicans. But Bush won West Virginia in 2000. Push. 5 votes here. With the 80 votes leaning to Bush, that brings his electoral total to 273. 270 are needed to win the election. Sounds like a repeat of last year’s performance. One other factor to consider in these “swing states: The following states: Arkansas Kentucky Louisiana Missouri Ohio Tennessee All cast votes for the eventual winner in EVERY election since 1972. So watch these states, they will most likely choose your next President. And don’t forget about Florida.
If your analysis is accurate, I guess this is one of the reasons a lot of people believe Dean can't win. Theere are a lot of Southern states among those swing states, and Dean, being a New Englander, would seemingly be less attractive to Southerners. And it has been what? 43 years since a Democrat from New England won the Presidency. I don't know if I subscribe to that theory, but I think that's where a lot of people are coming from.
Nice analysis. It's going to be an uphill battle for Dean (or any Democrat, really), but it's definitely within reach. Most pundits are underrating how concerned many moderates and fiscal conservatives are with Bush right now -- bloated budget, dying soldiers, crappy economy, P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act and huge deficits. Millions more voters are concerned about Republican policies now than in 2000. That doesn't mean Bush will lose again, but it's going to be a tight race.
43 years sounds like a long time, but there has only been 4 democrats and and 5 republicans in the white house during that period. So 1 out of 9 from New England isn't that bad.
This certainly makes the case for Gephardt more compelling, which is what he's been arguing the last few weeks. But the American people haven't even been introduced to Dean in any meaningful way yet. As many, many pundits (including Will) have noted, he's not McGovern or Dukakis -- he's much tougher than they were. More savvy too. He's a serious fighter and that's the kind of candidate I want to go to war with. BTW, anyone see Clark on the Daily Show last night? He was awful. Laughing at his own 'jokes,' raising sympathetic eyebrows at his cookie cutter stories of meeting students, dodging questions with answers like 'It takes leadership.' Reminded me of Bush. 'America wants leaders and that's what leaders do. They lead. And I'm a leader, so I lead... Upwards not downwards, forwards not sideways and always twirling, twirling toward the future...' Clark's great on paper and just terrible on camera. And will somebody please tell me what's up with those shoulder pads? Who told him that was a good idea?
Actually it shows that no one has it in the bag. Dean (or whoever wins the Dem nomination) will need to make sure that he wins as many of the following states as possible: Arkansas: Normally republican, this state shifted with Clinton but in 2000 went back to Bush. It really should be considered at least a leaning Republican with its 6 electoral votes. Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri ,Ohio ,Tennessee, West Virginia, or Florida. Vermont,plus winning all of the Democratic leaning states, plus any one of those states or a combination of at least Arkanasas and West Virginia gives Dean the win. Dean can pretty much steer clear of the strong Republican states except Florida and pool his resources elsewhere.
It does appear, though, that the current wisdom from the DNC is that for a Democrat to have the best chance of winning, he should be from the South. But, like I said, I don't know if that really holds true just because the last Democratic nominee from New England was trounced and the last few nominees from the South have either won or came really, really close to winning (and, according to some counts, did win), though Carter didn't win re-election, of course.
Do I detect reservations on your part? And do you really think that Dean can win in the Southern primaries (not that that apparently matters in the general election)?
This isn't a Clark vs. Dean thing for me. I just don't like Clark. It's a personal taste issue, since I don't have a beef with his platform or his issues (or his party affiliation history). I just can't stand to hear him speak. It's like nails on a chalkboard for me. And I feel like, ninety percent of the time, he's saying nothing. It all feels like carefully chosen platitudes, designed to appeal to all and offend none. He's not the guy I thought he was going to be, having read a lot about him before he got in. I'd read how he was the intellectual general with the outside-the-box approach to problem solving. I'd read about his courage and his conviction and, of course, I'd read about his impressive military record. And then he got in and started campaigning like Gore did last time -- carefully to a fault, talking down to his audience. I feel like I can see the hand up the back of his shirt, moving his mouth, ever conscious not to say anything the least bit controversial (probably a good thing since, when he goes off on his own, he does something like supporting an amendment against flag burning - that's enough to lose my vote right there). I recently read where he said he called Clinton after the Gore endorsement. Clinton said, "So, what do you say to that?" Clark said, "The only endorsements that matter to me are the ones I get" or something like that. Clinton said, "That's exactly right." In Clark's attempt to beat the learning curve of politics, he is behaving like the quintessential politician. That, plus his slow, measured tones while saying virtually nothing, his deer in the headlights look and his weird attachment to shoulder pads (shoulder pads! wasn't he a general?!), gross me out. Yes. I have reservations. I have plenty about Dean too, but Clark gives me the willies.
BTW, what do you think about Edwards? He comes across a bit wishy washy, not all that inspiring. I do like his message, trying to be positive about what a Edwards presidency would be like. If only we could combine Dean's fire and Edwards' message into one candidate :s
I like Edwards alright. The populist stuff is right on and, as Will said in one of his Slate columns, I think the eventual nominee should co-opt it. He was just another lemming on the war and the Patriot Act, though. I also can't see him giving Bush the fight he'd need to give him. Edwards is right that the election won't be won on anger, but the nominee ought not to be without anger. He's too soft and too young to be the guy this time around. And he never should have agreed not to run for re-election. That was just nuts. If he doesn't get the VP nod (and he's not particularly high on any list), he's got nowhere to go when he inevitably loses his bid.
again... leaning toward Michael Drosnin's findings in my thread: http://bbs.clutchcity.net/php3/showthread.php?s=&threadid=69374
