Incredible analysis of where we are electorally WOW!!!!

[LimpingLib]

www.mydd.com/story/2004/11/22/235140/10#readmore

www.mydd.com/balance (this is a 1968-2004 chart)

I had no idea this was avaliable anywhere on the web. Gets to the heart of what I have been trying to say the last 2 weeks. I cant believe the talant of these webloggers. They know their stuff. All the facts are presented in one place and as if thats not enough...the analysis is just right on!!!


I am glad I saw much the same reality as the top talant in our party only I lack the talant and research skills.At least I generally saw what was happening. I feel Im in the extreme minority(like less than 5% who sense where the nation and states are)but hopefully all us "experts" who debate constantly can read and learn. I know I keep learning.

There is a time to run your mouth off and a time to shut up and read. This is one of those times (see top link!). Im zipping my lip and re-reading it all again to digest fully.

[UL_Approved]

1. These guys have been working on this stuff for a long time

They have been at it for weeks just with posts. It is a HUGE amount of stuff to take in, but it is certainly worthwhile. They also did and analysis on the Dixiecrat shift in another article a while back.

[Julien Sorel]

2. This is generally good stuff. I have some quibbles here and there,

and three big problems:

1) The analysis is regional, and not behavior, oriented. By treating each region as a discrete entity, he ignores the fact that there are people who vote and act like Southerners, but don't live there: rural voters. We lost Ohio because of rural voters. We lose Missouri because of rural voters. We barely hang on in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, because the Republicans own the rural voters. Does being a conservative southerner automatically grant one rural appeal in, say, Wisconsin, or is there a key to flipping Northern rural voters without pandering to what are essentially Southern sensibilities? It's the single biggest question we face, and I would like to see an answer. I came to the conclusion that John Edwards won't win in the South against Bill Frist a while ago, but can he win in rural Pennsylvania against Frist?

2) He seems to ignore candidate effects. Bush, a "born again Christian," who's "from Texas" and tries to act like a cowboy, automatically has some appeal there. What would happen if Rudy Giuliani were the nominee, and he ran against Edwards or Mark Warner? That's essentially the scenario both Carter and Clinton were in, moderate Southerners running against moderate Yankees (Bush I is about as Texas as I am), and they were able to do well there. If the Republicans run someone without native appeal in the South, we can try what is, essentially, counter-programming; and in fact, would have to, because someone like Giuliani or Arnold would flip one of our big states, and then there are a ton of electoral votes to make up.

3) Speaking of electoral votes, where are they? He basically advocates abandoning the South. That means we start out down about 170 EVs. That's the math that killed us in the last two elections, and it's the math that's killing us in Congress. We need to win, then, 270 of the remaining roughly 350 electoral votes. Drop a single big state, California, or New York, or Pennsylvania, and the whole thing goes down the tubes. There is simply no margin for error. And for all his excitement and enthusiasm, it's a dismal outlook. Either we find a way to flip a southern state or two, or we are going to lose our asses, not just the presidency, but congress as well.

[shuffnew]

3. TEXAS SHOULD BE A FOCUS!

Even with DeLay successfully tearing up the state of Texas (through his re-districting really illegally) to better ensure having a red capitol hill, and with voter fraud, etc.... Texas was still near 60/40 (likely closer to 50/50 in reality)... There's 34 EV (almost enough to make up for Ohio and Florida in 2004). I still think that Texas is one of the highest probable states to change direction and the EV advantage would certainly make the effort worthwhile.

First, we need to boot those such as DeLay...

Start now for 2006 and get more Demo reps in on the hill.

The Bushies were merely political implants in Texas .... THEY ARE NOT TEXANS!

And for active Texas women... join the Texas Democratic Women's organization, build your website for your area (if one is not already shown on the tdw website for your area)... let's get busy and take Texas!
http://www.tdw.org

:kick:

[Freddie Stubbs]

5. 2004 was probably our best opportunity to oust DeLay

He had an opponent who managed to raise a some money with the help of Howard Dean. That, combined with the indictment of some of his associates and his possible indictment led some to believe that DeLay was on his way out. His Democratic challenger managed to get 41% of the vote. News just broke a day or two ago that Delay probably won't be indicted. If it didn't happen this year, it probably isn't going to happen.

Which leads me to another topic. There were some posting here on DU who were active in the campaign of DeLay's opponent, Richard Morrison. They claimed that someone on Morrison's campaign had told them that a poll was conducted that showed the race was within a few points. Of course if there really were such a poll, Morrison's campaign would have publicized its results.

[shuffnew]

20. Didn't work, but DeLay had some boot shaking...

Yes, Morrison made great strides to attempt to oust DeLay (sure wish it had been successful). I heard (nothing official though) that DeLay was actually going door-to-door personally soliciting votes.

DeLay has been the thorn preventing democracy and promoting lies and fraud in Texas for 20+ years and is certainly a key rep. that needs to come down! Sure wish Morrison had been successful.

The Bush administration will pull all strings they can to keep the DeLay mob in power here. Don't know what it will take -- but wish he would be ousted somehow.

[LimpingLib]

7. Texas was 47.6% minority in 2000 and will be 50-50 by 2010.

Problem is Hispanics voted 60% for Bush in the state this year.

But in 2002 Ronk Kirk got 68% of the Hispanic vote and Sanchez got 63% though both got pounded statewide.

Id say that after Bush ,in a 50-50 election we might be able to count on 65% of the Hispanic vote and about 75% of the total minority vote.Problem is we loose whites like 85%-15% plus whites actually register to vote.

Texas is a state to watch.With a heavy minority population it means we should move left to win this state.We are lucky that in a nation with just 33% minoritys , there are some states that are just ripe and loaded with potential progressive voters.The entire Southwest. Many solid red states are nearly 100% white. The competitive states we need have more minoritys than the national average. And Kerry just solidified many of the old white progressive states like Minnesota and Wisconsin.

[pmbryant]

8. Don't believe that Texas exit poll.

Problem is Hispanics voted 60% for Bush in the state this year.

This statistic from an exit poll is very wrong. It doesn't match up with actual county-by-county voting totals.

Bush got 61% of the vote in Texas this year, about the same as he did in 2000. There is no way he boosted his support so much upon Hispanics. That would mean he did extremely poorly among whites, which there is no evidence for.

Here is the full argument for why this 60% number in Texas is complete garbage: http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/archives/000951.php

[LimpingLib]

9. Thanks.

I heard about that many times but all networks say Bush got the same amount as I said.

Im just ging to go by conventional numbers but I believe your link there.

I also think the electronic machines are stealing votes but dont take that into account when analysing the electorate.

I also tink minoritys are heavly undercounted in the census but use official numbers (in my rough estimates).

[shuffnew]

16. Much Blame Goes to the Catholic Priests...

Many of the Texas hispanics were intimidated by some of the Catholic priests. Most were not really for Bush actually. In fact, many didn't vote for fear of going to hell if they didn't vote for Bush or have go to confession if they voted for Kerry. It was a horribly sad situation in 2004 for the brow-beaten hispanics. These are also a majority of our poor and uninsured who needed Kerry-Edwards change of direction badly.

We have some plans to reverse some of this damage and hope the plans work. We're cranking up.

Many of us had begged to get some Democrat focus on Texas for this year's election, but we didn't get much at all really.

It is ripe for picking and carries 34 EV! I think much focus should be placed immediately on the red states adjacent to the Mexico border like Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, etc. Also, Arkansas made some moves to the left this election year. Arkansas and Oklahoma would have much to gain from the directions put forth by Kerry-Edwards.

One of the problems was that the Bush-Rove liars actually even had people believing that if they voted for Kerry-Edwards they would no longer be able to own any sort of gun at all (another scare tactic in a time of terror when some feel that they must have at least a gun for protection if needed). Priests telling congregation members (many hispanic and some with difficulty in the English language) that would go to hell if they voted for Kerry-Edwards. So, some either didn't vote at all or voted as their priest told them they must.

So many lies were spread by the Bush-Rove slander throughout the southern states labeled 'red' (but many are actually barely red and we certainly cannot use the election results to show real percentages - maybe exit poll data would be more valid to use for our purposes!)

The south is some of the poorest areas, low minimum wage jobs, huge numbers of uninsured and unemployed, and a high percentage of minorities and hispanics, etc. In fact, many blacks that moved out of Texas are even coming back because of their treatment in the north.

Texas really started going downhill on medical coverage big time during the Bush's Governor-ship and has continued downward. When even the average wage earner in the south can't feed their families or get medical care, they will eventually wake up (my true hope and belief anyway). And where's the "family values" in this picture for those that voted for Bush or didn't vote at all?

[LimpingLib]

6. He actually looks at things state by state.

Ill repond to point # 1 first

We did the best in Ohio measured against the national average since 1972 infact from 1976-2000 the GOP had an edge but not now.Considering everybody here says we got spanked this election, it should become clear that our 2.2% win in Pennsylvania was impressive as it was 5.3% above the national average of a Bush 3.1% win.Best since 1988.Wisconsin we barely won in 2000 , a smaller win than Gores national win.Kerry lost "big" (according to some)nationally but increased the margin in Wisconsin ,our biggest win (indexed to the national average) since 1988 there.No Democrat except Wellstone has been able to outright win rural areas in competitive elections. Edwards has not yet nor will he ever win rural areas especially Pennsylvania.Dukakis won many in Iowa in 1988. Clinton won many in West Virginia in 1996.

#2

This is perhaps the most complicated to anwser. It would be so "different" that its hard for many to comprehend. Basically , it would be an election that is all about issues , most recent elections have been oooo Id say perhaps 5% about issues and 95% over soundbites and cultral relation to a candidate.A Pro Choice conservative would be a double edged sword that would hurt the party in many of the same places plus the South.It would benefit us tremendously.That wont happen though.

#3

He doesnt think the national alignment figures create an electorate where it makes sense to make a major move toward most Southern states. Look at the 1988 numbers (which are the best reflection of the 1972 genesis , and 1984 is similar also)and then look at how Kerry did compared to Clinton and Gore. WE have made comebacks in states like Colorado , South Dakota, and Montana. We have solidified the old progressive white rural states (except West Virginia).Heck even Virginia seems to me to be more akin to the Midwest than the South.I know he knows Virginia is a target. Perhaps it should be looked at as seperate from the South like Florida.I think his point is that states like Pennsylvania and California have solidified and we WONT loose them in any remotly close election.Only about 130 votes have been written off, not Florida and Virginia and perhaps not Missouri where large African American and Union populations reside.


That my responce.

EDITING: You asked where the electoral votes are. That missed the entire point. The electoral votes are finally on our side. What started in 1972 and continued again in 1984 and 1988 was confirmed by Kerry in 2004. We lost 61%-38% in 1972 and 53%-46% in 1988 but just 51%-48% in 2004. The partisan index clearly shows where we do better when we run the 1972,1984,1988 models. The difference is that we are at national parity now.289 electoral votes are our for the taking.

EDITING again "However, I believe that it is only running a nationwide ideological campaign, rather than one designed to appeal to a particular region, that we can continue to release our potential strength in the more or less post-regional (or at least highly diverse) West" and this is in responce to your saying he is targeting things on a regional basis. Quite the contrary he is just looking at numbers and patterns , he is stating electoral facts then his opinion is we need to wage a progressive vs. conservative war.

[Julien Sorel]

10. I'm too out of gas to really look at this.

Not counting Florida, The Republicans have about 170 EVs locked in between the rest of the South and the Midwest. Unless he thinks we can put some of those Plains states in play, it looks dismal to me. It also seems optimistic to think that Pennsylvania is a lock for us, but we can put WV, or Virginia, or Missouri, or one of the other marginal Southern states, in play. Pennsylvania is suffering through bad economic times, yet we barely won there, while WV went for Bush something like 55 - 45, despite worse economic times than Pennsylvania. The economies there get better, and we obviously have even rougher going.


Why did Wellstone have rural appeal? Was he able to tap into Minnesota's old tradition of populist liberalism? It's obviously an important question.


I'm going to look at it more closely later because it's interesting, but something about it doesn't square with me intuitively.

[LimpingLib]

12. Ill try and give you some of the main themes to look for.

I limited myself by only responding to what you said.

One theme to look for is that there is 2 different paths to take.

The 1976,1980,1992,1996, and 2000 path

The 1972,1984,1988, and 2004 path.

The second thing people need to reconize is the "partisan index". What it means is that you have to look at an election by asking yourself what would happen if the election was at its most competitive (a 50-50 national election , which frankly is the only way we can win , we cant win an elction where we are beaten nationaly). You need to see how many states were won by a smaller margin than the national win by the victor. It measures our strengths and weaknesses.If we loose nationaly 60%-40% but only loose a state by 52%-48% then that state is +16% in our favor as we can assume that in a competitive election that we can easily win that state.


EXAMPLE: There are only 2 states we have done better than the national average in every election since 1968-Pennsylvania and New York. But we nearly lost the "partisan index" in Pennsylvania in 1996 despite winning by 9%.Had the mold of Clinton,Gore, or Carter been in a 50-50 race then we could have been in danger of loosing. Mondale ,Dukakis , and Kerry easily won the partisan index. New York we win by so large a margin that we are even safer there than Pa.

WE havnt won the partisan index since 1980 till NOW.The Carter mold failed us, as 1992 and 2000 we lost the partisan index badly despite winning nationaly in both elections.In 2000 the GOP had a 313 vote partisan index advantage.Now they are down to 249 and we are at 289 (though Ohio is razor thin , take that away and we are at 269-269)

People keep saying we need to try for the South. Well that is the 1 area we have been slaughtered in the partisan index 3 elections in a row. The Carter,Clinton , Gore mold AND McGovern , Mondale , Dukakis, Kerry mold alike.The problem is for the former though as that is their base that they must win to win nationally.

I say we dont need to overlook or target a single region. All the moderates and Clark supporters (for example...but its not just them) say we need to think regional and aim for the South.

Look at this link for just 2 minutes please www.mydd.com/balance

I cant think of a more foolish strategy. Tell me asingle southern state we even come close in aside from Virginia and Florida. And Tennessee in 2000 doesnt count nor does Arkansas in 1996.Louisiana worked in 1996 but by 2000 it failed the southern targeters badly.

In conclusion we had 2 winning years in the partisan index. 1972 and 1980 (a carry over from 1976). the 1976 model failed us big time in every election till we got slaughtered in 2000 and only indexed 225 electoral votes. The 1972 model got us 289 in 2004.

People here seem to think the 1976,2000 model of only 225 electoral votes is a winning ticket.

[Julien Sorel]

14. Now I know what bothers me.

Reading through your post, it's as if the partisan index is more important than the actual voting results. Gore in 2000 is a "disaster" in the partisan index; in reality he came a handful of votes, and some Republican chicanery, away from winning.

I'm going to look at his methodology later, but I suspect I know what I'll find.

[LimpingLib]

15. They are based on a clearly defined set of REAL numbers.

Its all based on counted votes.

Gore lost nearly every state that he did by over 50% when Bush only got 47.9%.

Kerry lost much more narrow losses despite loosing nationaly to Bush by a 3.1% marin (Gore won nationaly by 0.5%). Gore won alot of states by razor thin margins where Kerry won the same states by larger margins.True some states Gore narowly won kerry narrowly lost but had Gore lost his election by 3.1% then he would have done horrible. Infact had his 0.5% win simply been a national tie then he would have lost 33 more electoral votes.

Partisan index means everything.


EDIT: Look at it this way

McGovern 38%
Nixon 61%

Kerry 48%
Bush 51%

The partisan index finally will mean something now that the nation has moved toward an even split.WE are back in the game in Colorado , where Dukakis only lost it by 0.1% (7.9% compared to the nations 7.8% loss for Democrats that year)indexed to the national average.

Gore lost it by 10 points indexed to the national average,42%-51% where he won nationaly by 0.5%. kerry narrowed the partisan index to just -3.7% an we can use this state to take us over the 269 tie (Im not sure if Ohio can be counted on or not though we finally won it in the partisn index).

[Julien Sorel]

17. Yet Gore didn't lose by 3%, as did Kerry.

That's partially the point.

I think what goes on here, and again, I haven't looked at his methodology, is that core votes are placed at a premium, so it's "better" to lose big than lose close, or even win close, according to this index. McGovern got the fewest votes we're likely to see in our lifetime, but the spread between his core, or base, votes and his actual vote total was (naturally) quite thin, which looks good, whereas Gore's spread was large, which looks bad, even though anyone looking at the two elections knows who did better.

I'm going to stop posting on this until I see his definitions, but I'm almost certain I'm pretty close to the issue.

[LimpingLib]

23. Consider this.

McGovern did better in some states than others.

He lost the solid GOP states by record margins.States we will loose anyway (except for Carter in 1976, that aside). The states we might have a chance in someday (that day being 2004-2008)he finished closer in.

If you want to get the nation at 50.1%-49.9% in our favor then the 1972,1984,1988,1004 model is the only way to win. We loose the "lets target the South" way.

I dont plan onloosing every election by 3.1% but had the 1976,1980,1992,1996,2000 model done that then we wont ever have a chance. Theoretically the 1972,1984,1988,2004 model could in time actually eek out an electoral win despite loosing by 3% but I want to finish even or ahead.

[dogman]

49. Not this Clark supporter.

Clark has national appeal but does not exclude the South. I would suggest we look at the man McGovern endorsed. I think McGovern had it right in realizing the across the board appeal of Clark. I believe Clark would carry every existing blue state and shift the purple states to more blue and the added benefit of coat-tails helping the overall status of the Party. We are not going to accomplish a lot by winning the presidency only.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

13. Wellstone's rural appeal

After Wellstone was killed, veteran DUer TygrBright, who knew him personally, wrote that he didn't just come out of nowhere, as the media made it appear, but had been an activist in a lot of causes for years.

These included rural issues. Therefore when he began running for Senate, he had a network of contacts in rural areas and a reputation for being a fighter and a straight shooter. By all accounts, he also had amazing people skills and a lack of pretension. (One of the Minnesota DUers has a photograph of him and Sheila sitting on the ground among the crowd at a union-sponsored Labor Day picnic.)

What I've noticed about rural and blue collar people (my father was from a town of 1200, and I spent three years as a temp worker, working in industrial jobs about half the time) is that they like feistiness and plain speaking and are super-sensitive to any signs that a person feels he is "better than everyone else."

So a short, bald, secular Jewish college professor from the East won the hearts of rural voters. I was not in Minnesota except for brief visits during his time in the Senate, but I'm not aware that he ever said much about guns, gays, or God. Instead, he fought for what he believed in, no matter what everyone else said.

In my opinion, Kerry fell short with rural and blue collar voters because he has an aristocratic air that he just can't seem to drop completely (that was the impression I got watching unedited CSPAN coverage of the primaries--Bush for all his inherited wealth does a convincing "good ole boy" act. Personally, I liked Kerry's obvious intelligence and competence, but that's just me.), didn't fight back soon enough when attacked by a pack of liars, and always seemed a bit embarrassed and flustered when asked to explain his vote on the IWR.

Wellstone's success in Minnesota (like Feingold in Wisconsin, DeFazio in Oregon, Kucinich and Kaptur in Ohio) argues against the idea that only a conservative Southern governor can appeal to rural and blue collar voters. There is no magic demographic recipe for a successful candidate, but what the people I've mentioned share is feistiness, integrity, plain speaking, lack of pretension, and superb people skills.

For example, my two favorite Congress critters in Oregon were Earl Blumenauer and Peter DeFazio. Blumenauer represents the reliably liberal east side of Portland, and DeFazio represents a district that includes the university town of Eugene but also includes depressed rural areas that were built on the troubled timber and fishing industries.

I met both of them several times, and I always felt perfectly comfortable just walking up to DeFazio and strking up a conversation. With Blumenauer, I always felt as if I needed to be more formal. Yet if you look at the issues, DeFazio is the more liberal of the two.

Another example is Kucinich, who doesn't come across particularly well on television, but who can win over a crowd in person like no one I've ever seen and who is completely approachable, even during a jam-packed campaign stop.

So I reiterate, there's no fool-proof demographic or ideological recipe for a successful candidate. Just keep the bloodless wonks away from rural and blue collar voters. Even a Massachusetts liberal (DeFazio is from Massachusetts, by the way) can win this constituency as long as he has firmly held core beliefs, fights for them, explains them in simple but non-condescending terms, doesn't put on airs, and makes people feel that he could be their buddy.

[fujiyama]

11. Ultimately you're right

This strategy puts us on the defensive for all elections in the near future and as the electoral map shifts, it will bode EVEN WORSE down the road, after all the current numbers will only be valid for one more election ('08) and then we will face the challenges of redistricting. If we don't find a way to solidify the NE and upper midwest, and gain support in the southwest, we will see the same problems coming back to haunt us.

I also agree about the idea of two medium sized or large states flipping. While you noted CA and NY, those are safe. On the other hand, we see that PA (21EV) is far from safe, as are MI, WI, IA, and MN. In fact, if we look at the upper midwest (IA, WI, and MN) we have the equivalent of another MI (17EVs). As you said, if we lose any one of MI, PA, WI, MN, or IA, we find it very difficult to win.

Our near term strategy is relegated to picking up Gore states + OH/FL. We need to make up ground lost with Hispanics in FL and find a real way to connect with them in AZ, NM, and CO. That's one of the keys. That and making up ground with white female voters. I'm still skeptical about white male voters (the whole false macho persona of the GOP seems to appeal to them).

Abandoning the south would be foolish but at the moment we are literally lost in the wilderness with respect to the region. It will be tough to defend southern incumbents, let alone almost impossible for us to pick up any open seats in the region. The same goes for the House.

[gnofg]

4. forget the south

I live in the south and forget it. Southerners will not vote for a northerner. I do agree that it is Rural vs. cities. I think in the long run we have to go after socially liberal and fiscally conservative and champion small business by reducing taxes on small business in the form of social security. The small businessman is killed by it. I own my own biz and we pay double Social security. They should be some kind of relief for businesses getting off the ground. We would do wonders if we promote this agenda. I say go west- Ariz, CO, NM nad Nev.

[Carolab]

57. They did vote for a northerner

Bush--twice.

And Reagan was from a big BLUE state-CA, remember?

It's about IDENTITY, not statehood. Repeat that to yourself until you get it.

[greenohio]

18. I think it might be fun with numbers.

Why compare a state to how the vote was nationally? So a state voted "less repuke" than the national average in this election? Does that matter? His partisan index seems to indicate that OH is heading Dem. As an ohioan, this is pure fiction. Bush went from below 49% in 2000 to 51% in 2004. We gained too, but not enough to win. That with a big increase in voters. The repukes hold just about everything at the state level. We are NOT trending Dem.

[LimpingLib]

19. Gore lost by 3.5% Kerry lost by 2.8% (Edit Kerry lost by 2.5%)

Thats a fact.

You sure Im the one playing with numbers?

[greenohio]

21. Nader was not on the ballot this round.

I said we gained too. BUT 2004 was a carbon copy of 2000 except we recaptured most (not all) of the Nader vote. This with a good turn out for OH. Repukes have the gov., both senators, the SOS, the assembly and the state senate. We are NOT trending Democrat. We need to work as if we are behind because WE ARE BEHIND. Any sugar coating does not help.

[LimpingLib]

24. Bush got 50% in Ohio anyway in 2000

Had all 3rd partys been gone then he would have had about 51%.

Nader took 21%-25% from Bush in different exit polls as did other 3rd partys.Nader took 38%-47% from Gore.

Bush got like 49.8% in ihion in 2000 anyway.

Edit:Bush actualy got 50.0% in Ohio in 200 and Gore 46.5%

Kerry got more than 2% more than Gore(he was at 48.5% when Bush had a 130,000 vote lead but that lead shrunk I think).Polls showed Nader took 6 times more from Kerry than Bush.

[greenohio]

26. As I said, we recaptured some Nader voters.

2000 Bush 49.97% 2,351,209
2000 Gore 46.46% 2,186,190
2004 Bush 51.0% 2,796,147
2004 Kerry 48.5% 2,659,664

We recaptured some Nader voters. Thats about it. We are not trending Democratic. Kerry said he was going to have his mail forward to OH he was here so often.

[LimpingLib]

28. Ohio is so trending Democratic!!

Ohio has lots of Pro Life liberals so that state probabilly saw Nader take almost the same fom Gore as Bush.

Nationally the exit poll that showed Nader taking the most net fom Gore was 47% from Gore and 21% from Bush , which makes a net 0.7% out of 2.7%. Other exit polls had it as little as 0.3% net nationaly.

True Ohio saw Nader get a higher percentage of the vote than nationally but in Ohio there were more votes taken from Bush. Same with Wisconsin where polls constantly showed Nader taking more from Bush even when national polls had nader hurting Kerry a little.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. A Lousy ..07% For The Focus On Ohio...

Kerry made it ground zero for his campaign.... Gore pulled his advertising from Ohio in early October...

And that fella at mydd plays with numbers a lot....


Clinton was and is more popular in Cali and NY than any other Democratic politician...

[LimpingLib]

25. NEVER before from 1968-2004 have we did better in Ohio than the national

than the national average.

Till now.


These are facts.

www.mydd.com/balance

check it out

EDIT--except 1972 but that doesnt help your argument lol

[greenohio]

27. I would rather Win OH as we did in 96 and 92

Then just do better than the national average. How bout you?

[LimpingLib]

29. We won it by 1% 40%-39% in 1992.

You sure we can count on winning an election with 40%?

Thats your ideal situation?


Clinton only got like 47.7% in Ohio in 1996 too.

No party will win by 8.3% like Clinton did in 1996 either.The nation is too evenly split.

[greenohio]

31. I don't care by what percentage we win.

All that matters is who has the higher percentage when the fat lady sings. Tell you what, you relax knowing that OH is trending better than the national average. I'll bust my butt because I want to win the state.

[LimpingLib]

34. Gore won nationally in 2000 by 0.5%

The GOP had an electoral adantage and it paid off.

Now we have the electroal advantage.

If the GOP wins nationally by 0.5% then we have a 0.6% advantage in Ohio and we take the White House.

WE are at 269-249 and Ohio gives up 289 based on the partisan index.


Pick your ass up and go home. But it pays with the 1972,1984,1988,2004 model.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. Kerry Made OH and FL The Focal Point Of His Campaign...

It was as if he were running for pres of Flohio and we lost both.....


I am reluctant to learn too many positive lessons from his campaign...


Also, I disagree with the mydd host's thesis...


We can win FL and VA with the right middle of the road (NOT CONSERVATIVE) candidate without surrendering our core principles...


While that guy is waiting for his progressive majority to emerge the Pugs will be busy co opting Asians and Hispanics-two pillars of our base...

[LimpingLib]

35. His thesis is to fuck stupid regional strategys. Thats smart!!

He wants us to focus on issues issues issues.

And it just so happens that the electoral model to do that was the one based on issues issues issues that happened to be progressive.

[greenohio]

36. I don't see it as an either or.

I believe we should build the party in all states. We shouldn't let repukes stand unopposed.

I believe we should focus on the issues.

I believe that if there are states that are close and swing us electorally we should focus on them.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. VA,, FL, and OH Are In Reach..

with the right message, the right candidate, and the right strategy...


And we can do it without throwing gays and women off the bus...


We are losing the rural vote 60-40...

We don't need to win it... Just come a bit closer....

By talking to them like they are people....

[LimpingLib]

39. We cant spread thin in Predidential elections.

We should focus (meaning campaign resources and time,money,energy,activists, etc.) on states where we have a chance of winning.

But not select amy candidate based on regional appeal.I suppose if we are loosing the partisan index by like 2% (razor tin)then one can argue that it might be "smart" to nominate a candidate from that state but its unlikly that we could have the miraculous fortune of having the best progresive candidate also happen to come from that state.

It would mean we are trying to "play God" and fudging the election bsed on some lousey "strategy" most likly.

[greenohio]

40. Ignoring regional appeal is a loser.

The country views the NE as liberal. Regardless of issues, NE will have a hard time not being painted out of touch.

[LimpingLib]

41. And people call me shallow.

Damn them Vermont vermon.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. People Vote On Values Not Issues..

If folks voted strictly on issues few working class people would vote Pug...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. In My Best Aronld Voice From Twins

"Good One"...

[greenohio]

32. Thank you.

[brindis_desala]

42. While this macroanalysis is fine and good

the reality is Bush was an atypical candidate: negative on all determinants except: a) national security, an issue for which most voters are ill-informed at best and b) for voters in love with voodoo economics. Unfortunately, taken with the wedge of "moral issues" makes progressive ideas a tough sell in states like OHIO. What we need to be doing (unless there's some magical way to get rid of the Electoral College is showing to these moderate moral folks that these current crop of republicans are dishonest to the extreme. Vote fraud would be a dandy first start.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/OHPxp.html

[Julien Sorel]

43. OK, now that I've looked at it,

there's really nothing there. The PI tells us what we already know: the Democrats are strong on the coasts, and weak in the South and the Plains. Anyone looking at the election results knows this.

Anyway, what I ultimately found most disappointing (and my first three issues weren't answered to my satisfaction, largely because they are outside the scope of this guy's stuff, I see now), is his either/or construct. Either we follow the "McGovern strategy," or we follow the "Carter strategy." Well the Carter strategy is dead for Democrats -- again, everyone knows this. I was a Clark guy in the last election, figuring he could flip Arkansas and appeal to enough moderates and security freaks to win Florida and/or Ohio, while holding the core of the Gore base. I had no illusions that Clark, or any other Democrat, could turn in a Jimmy Carter-like performance there. I don't know of anyone besides the most starry-eyed partisan who did.

Going forward, I find myself liking Mark Warner. Again, he isn't going to sweep the South or anywhere close to it. If he runs, and if he beats the odds in the primaries, my hope is that he again, holds the Gore/Kerry core, and ads Virginia, perhaps West Virginia (enough for a win right there), and Florida to the blue column, while forcing the Republicans to campaign harder across the South than they did this time around, and picking up more of the rural vote than Democrats have been doing.

This guy is basically arguing a case that's already been decided. Why is this important, then?

[LimpingLib]

44. Because U cant simply "move right" or "pick a southerner" & make NET gains

People dont seem to be able to figure this out.

Just look at the partisan index. Heck forget that just look at raw vote numbers. Kerry got a higher percentage of the vote in many states than Clinton and Gore got.When you consider Kerrys opponent got a much higher national percentage than any DEmocratic opponent in the last 4 elections, then it is fair to simply look at the states Kerry got at least as high of a percentage as Clinton and Gore.

You are assuming that we can just "pick a southerner" and hold what we have then by some miracle win states that we got pounded in the last 2 elections like West Virginia and Arkansas. You forget Kerry got a higher vote percentage in MANY states compared to the last 4 elections from 1992-2004.

In Minnesota for example he got the highest vote percentage since Dukakis. But it still isnt a "safe" state as it was a 51.2% Kerry vote total. Clinton and Gore only got 44% and 42% in Colorado. Kerry got 46%. Clinton and Gore couldnt top 47% in Oregon , Kerry got 52%. In Neveada Clinton and Gore couldnt get past 46%, Kerry got 48%.Kerry toped Gore in Wisconsin and matched Clinton even while Clinton was pounding Bob Dole nationaly.Kerry beat both in Virginia. Kerry got more than both did in Ohio.

If you want to risk loosing so many states that we can win in favor of cutting our looses in Arkansas then I suggest ..no BEG you to consider another strategy.

[Julien Sorel]

45. 2008: Warner vs Frist.

Why should someone in, say, California choose to vote for Frist over Warner? They're both southerners, and one's more moderate than the other: by the reverse application of your own principle Californians will choose Warner (the more liberal), just as southerners will choose Frist (the more conservative) against any Democrat. I simply want Warner's potential to pick up homer votes in Virginia and WV, as well as demonstrate, nationwide, some of the rural appeal he has shown in Virginia.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

47. That's Sloppy Social Science You're Peddling There...

You are comparing Clinton's 92 and 96 numbers with Gore's 00 numbers and Kerry's 04 numbers without taking into consideration that Perot was a much stonger third party challenger in 92 and 96 than Nader was in 00 and 04...


Do the math for those years and tell me what percentage of the two party vote each candidate got and come back to me...

[LimpingLib]

51. O.K. then lets look at "right wing" Virginia congressional districts then

Take the congressional district of Ed Schrock. Conservative DEmocrat Own Pickett held this seat. When he stepped down in 2000 many thought Schrock would win running away. It was rated safe GOP. WEll SChrock won with no trouble but it was only 52%-48%.

He was unnoposed in 2002.

He stepped down in 2004.

WE nominated a Clark clone (Im not bashing Clark just responding to this endless "Democrats running on issues are loosers..especially those aliens from the NorthEast ...lets do a southern regional strategy......pick a southerner .... we will only gain and loose 'nothing'..." ) in this heavy military district withs lots of vets. A former Marine and moderateish.

The GOPer won by double didgets in this competitive race. I listened to her adressing a GOP meeting and she talked about her campaign. Then she mentioned the Presidential numbers.She said ....

...." we won but it was a little closer than we expected Bush beat Kerry 51%-48%"....

Kerry came 4 times closer than the Clark dupe and Kerry didnt even try in this state much less a GOP district.

Heck if Clark came that close (and I admit Virginia is one of the few competitive states Im not totally sure if a "southern strategy" will help or hurt us in..... though I admit I blush at the idiocy of a Democratic 'southern strategy')we would have never heard the end of it.

And Clinton did get a higher national vote in 1996 against a weak opponent than Kerry in 2004 , but I guess it will be another excuse depending on every situation.

Heck I thought I was compromising in not showing Kerry got a higher vote percentage than Clinton and Gore in both Washington state and New Mexico because I tend to think even a southern dud can win those 2 states.All those I listed however I think we will be hurt in by the Einsteinian Democratic Southern Strategy (EDSS).

Man Kerry does better on all counts compared to southerners...total votes in Virginia...voter percentage..partisan index but its never good enough. Heck Kerry widely outperforms competitive congressional districts "tailor made" for their districts and thats just a stubborn little "get out of my way facts...IGNORE..IGNORE" by the EDSS experts.

[Julien Sorel]

46. And another criticism.

Somewhere above, you said something like, "Kerry solidified Minnesota and Wisconsin."

Did Kerry "solidify" them, or were they reacting to Bush's radicalism? In 2000, Bush ran as a moderate. After four years of seeing him up close though, people know that isn't what he's about, plus he ran his campaign as an ideologue. That would alienate people in certain states -- states with a progressive tradition, like ... Wisconsin and Minnesota. So how much of the move is attributable to Bush being a polarizer, as opposed to any "liberalism" from Kerry? This goes back to the problem I outlined earlier, that is, there's no way to control for the other candidate in this system.

[LimpingLib]

55. Here we go again with the "extremist" "radical" charge.

Not all states buy into this "radical left" "radical right" soundbite scare tactic.

Take Washington state for example. In 1988 the Democratic primary saw Jessy Jackson win while the GOP primary saw Pat Robertson win.

You need to get over this "moderate voter" myth.

Everybody in 1988 felt Bush the father was more moderate than Bush the son in 2000. Everybody felt Dukakis was more liberal than Clinton or Gore.

Dukakis won Washignton , Oregon , etc. He also won Minnesota , Wisconsin , Iowa , etc.

Gore just scrapped by in all of those states (Washington was a 5% win but still competitive).

My argument would be that Kerry wasnt enough of an economic progressive so thats why he didnt clobber Bush even worse. As for Minnesota and Wisconsin , I think if Bush made abortion , homosexuality , and guns much more of an issue then he would have done better.

I think that even West Virginia would be in our camp again (despite Gore loosing by 8 points and Kerry even more , remember Dukakis ran away with the state) if we nominated a complete progressive on economic issues.

Dont forget that Colorado voted for Armstrong the same time it always voted for Hart.The Clinon years saw that state go from being a friendly Democratic state (Dukakis only lost 0.1% more than the national average) to a total blowout in 2000.

Id say what kills us is that the traditional base of white liberals have been turned off big time in the recent years while white conservatives have been charged up with delight at having a party to represent them.Kerry rekindled a small part of that spark.

No that minoritys are at 23% turnout (19% in 2000 about 10% in 1984)in 2004 and around 25% for 2008 , we should energize them to turnout even higher plus get the white liberals to get interested again.

But no we need a "southern strategy". Nixon would be smiling from his grave to see the oddball movements popping up in 2004 and of all places a "far left" Democratic website.

[ColdWarZoomie]

48. Too Deep in the Weeds

Analysis is fine and dandy. But we need to get out of the weeds and develop short-term goals and medium- and long-term strategies.

The first goals are to clean house of all the knuckleheads who have been losing elections for the last 10 years, re-establish our core principles, clarify our message reflecting those principles, and repeat our message over and over and over and over.

James Carville argues that most Americans agree with what we Democrats believe in, and I think he’s right. The problem is that we are losing the shouting match. Republicans have no fear making outrageous claims day in and day out, always putting us on the defense. And they all parrot their talking points within microseconds after any possibly detrimental issue pops up, spreading like a virus across the ‘Net.

After we hone our message, we need to fight back and be an OPPOSITION party. For everyone who thinks we need to play well with the GOP, look back at their rise to power in the last 30 years. Have they ever played well with us? And did it interfere with their agenda? Nope. And do you really think the talk radio hypocrites will change their tune if we play nice? Look back at the two years after 9-11 when we rolled over in Congress. Did the RW attack machine slow down and start praising us for being bi-partisan? Yeah - right!

The medium-term strategy should be to concentrate on the swing states without abandoning our base. But if we re-establish our core principles and keep our message clear, we’ll win those states back and gain some momentum. At the same time, we need to come up with an extremely long-term strategy of how to win back the South. And by long-term, I mean decades.

I grew up in Georgia and Mississippi. Let me tell you, the South is a complex place. When you mix fundamentalist Christianity, racism, a belief in rugged individualism constrained by a hypocritical religious etiquette (praise the Lord every Sunday morning after a week of covert boozing, fornicating, and adultery), regional and racial (white) pride, poor education, poverty, and a belief that “The South Will Rise Again,” it will take a lot of work coming up with a strategy to get these folks changing what they feel in their hearts. And that’s the important point – we cannot appeal to the South with “rational” arguments alone. Remember Zell Miller’s speech at the GOP convention? It was far from rational. But he knows exactly what white, southern men want to hear. And it ain’t pretty for the touchy-feely among us. It will take a sustained campaign for decades to change the mindset of many white southerners and how they feel about our party. And to make it even harder, we cannot abandon our principles nor our African-American constituents all the while.

Bottom line is that we cannot continue with these piecemeal campaign strategies that are actually driven by tactics. I’m sick of hearing how we should do this or that for 2006 and 2008. We’re just chasing our tail.

We need a well-defined, national strategy reflecting our core beliefs rooted in two principles:

1. KISS – Keep It Simple, Stupid
2. The Seven Ps: Proper Prior Planning Prevents Piss-Poor Performance.

Here Endeth the Rant

Edit: spelling

[dogman]

50. That's been the strategy for too long.

We get locked into a regional battle which we often begin with a disadvantage while they are out winning a national war. They concentrate on their strengths and engage us on our turf. While we fight the turf wars they draw us into the spots where they hold an underlying advantage. The election of 2000 was a case in point. Early on we admitted we wer putting all of our stakes on Forida. They couldn't have been happier. They controlled the power structure and could always count on a percentage of the vote that they could control.

[LimpingLib]

52. So requiring we "pick a southerner" is good for what then?

Kerry did better in the West , Midwest , North , South West, Mountain ,Virginia, etc. than all our candidates since 1992.

Kerry figured he needed Florida and Ohio , he is was right. Even if Bush didnt win squeekers in New Mexico , Nevada , and Iowa then we would still have been 269-269.

That isnt a regional strategy. Thats going for the most marginal states. Its called our electoral system.

The only places Kerry hurt us aside from the south were states like New Jersey.Its a social liberal state in a fanatical way but the strong stance Kerry took (compared to Clinton and Gore)at times one economic and foreign policy issues scared the state a little. Kerry lost considerable ground compared to where Clinton and Gore finished. Still won easily.

Some states a progressive (andNONE SOUTHERNER since this has to be argued on 2 fronts , I will always get the argument turned to the other side of the coin if I dont do a dual responce) hurts us in but we are so far ahead it doesnt matter.

Anyway the anwser to my title/your post is "the south" (aside from perhaps Virginia... perhaps Florida) where we get to narrow our 28 point looses to 14 points.

[missouri dem 2]

54. Excellent post.

Especially the Kiss principal. As stupid as * is he stayed on

message. Why can't Dem's get this? I believe that Kerry would have

won by a big margin if he would have articulated a clear message and

pounded on *'s incompetence.


I also think that we have made a big mistake in the last 2 elections

by nominating candidates that are far removed from the middle class.

Both Kerry and Gore are from privileged backgrounds and it shows.

[newyawker99]

58. Hi missouri dem 2!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[welshTerrier2]

56. Core Values Think Tank forum proposal coming soon ...

great post ... we're all tangled up in campaign mechanics and silly this candidate - that candidate and left -right debates ... and we haven't done the real work needed to win in the future ...

i'll be issuing a new forum proposal for a group who's mission will be to get the "core values" themes defined as a first step ... all democrats will be expected to regularly promote these themes and stay on message within some reasonable range ...

step two will be the development of specific policies that tightly integrate with the "core values" themes ...

again, all elected democrats and other democrats will be expected to seek media coverage for the constant repetition of both themes and policies ... the goal is education of the American public ... we will never win if our values are not clearly communicated to voters ...

please look for the new forum proposal on Sunday or Monday ... we need as many people as possible to support the development of the new forum ... the forum proposal is only a request to the DU admins ... there's no guarantee the request will be granted ... vote early and often ... additionally, any ideas you might have about how to structure the forum (and naming the forum) would be very helpful ...

[WCGreen]

53. Interesting abut Indiana....

Not that I want to insult anyone from my neighboring state, but wasn't Indiana the home of the last northern outpost for the KKK? Didn't one of the last lynchings in America take place in Indiana....

Now look at the Northern Partisan Index

Indiana has been red since 1972...

I spent about the equivalent of sixteen months working at a top 30 radio station located in Fort Wayne. I was surprised how conservative the people were. They really have embraced a "family value" life style that is pretty rural in outlook, or at least small townish, and conservative in action....

Not to say that all conservatives are racists, that would be silly, but if you look at the how Indiana votes and how it is positioned between Illinois and Ohio, much more cosmopolitan states, you can see why Indiana would be more akin to the southern way of looking at politics than say Wisconsin or Pennsylvania.....