LAT: The electoral college is morphing, bringing new states in range for Democrats in '08

[DeepModem Mom]

The electoral college map is morphing
States long out of Democrats' reach could be within range for the '08 presidential race.
By Ronald Brownstein, Times Staff Writer
November 19, 2006

WASHINGTON — Even as the first potential candidates move toward the starting line, the ground may be shifting in the 2008 race for the White House.

This month's midterm election highlighted cracks in an electoral landscape that had been unusually stable.

Democrats have been hurt by the inability of their recent presidential candidates to wage competitive campaigns across a vast swath of the country. But the party emerged from this year's vote confident that in 2008, it can compete on a much wider playing field — especially in the West and several states on the fringe of the South.

"If you look at the results from '06, you see a lot of states that Democrats may be able to take … if they can swing the center the way they did" this year, said Ruy Teixeira, a public opinion analyst at the liberal Center for American Progress think tank.

Many Republicans acknowledge that the midterm results mean they may be forced to strenuously defend states such as Colorado and Virginia in 2008, which the party's recent presidential nominees considered safely in their camp....

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-polmap19nov19,0,3313714.story?track=mostviewed-splashpage

[Zynx]

1. Colorado, Virginia, Missouri, and Arkansas must be targeted.

Those are all possibilities.

[LiberalFighter]

2. Don't lose sight of the ones that they almost took from us

NM WI

[ISUGRADIA]

4. They are important too

and we did lose MN in 2004, Iowa is another

[fujiyama]

7. Kerry won MN

He lost IA.

[ISUGRADIA]

11. Sorry, transposed letters, it should have been NM that Kerry Lost

[MH1]

14. Did Kerry really lose NM? We'll never know, because

the NM governor blocked the recount.

[FrenchieCat]

12. Kerry lost MN

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/NM/P/00/

and IA!

[MH1]

13. BULLSHIT. Kerry WON **MN**

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/MN/P/00/

Was that a mistake on your part, or do you really get mixed up on NM vs. MN?

The first post was an honest mistake by the poster. Yours?

[Hawkeye-X]

18. Colorado will be giving their electoral votes to Dems

That's why we're having the Dem National Committee's party in Denver! *eg*

[1932]

3. That's what happens when you don't field a Massachusetts blue blood in every

congressional race in the country.

This isn't about the electoral college shifting. It's about the kinds of candidates that were running in all those congressional districts. A North Carolina or Indiana Democrat, Independent and Republican doesn't have a problem voting for a North Carolina or Indiana Democrat.

[skipos]

10. And that is nothing new

Of the last 6 1st time presidential runs, the three best were:
Cliton (AR), Carter (GA) and Gore (TN)
The three worst were:
Kerry (MA), Dukakis (MA) and Mondale (MN)

However, I would add that senators a historically greater challenge becoming president, probably due to how easy it is to smear and distort their voting record. Only two senators have become president in the last 100 years. In both cases, they were NOT running against an incumbent president. By comparison, in just the last couple of decades, Clinton, Reagan and Carter were all governors who defeated incumbent presidents.

[1932]

15. I think Senators and former Senators actually do better in open elections.

Think about it. When you run against an incumbent, a Senator seems like a subordinate, but a governor seems like a person who is peer, albeit of a smaller jurisdiction.

But in an open year, many Senators have much higher profiles and, since they're running against people who haven't been president, don't have to worry about appearing too junior.

[rockymountaindem]

20. Thus explaining our losses in the 2002 election

When, for example, Massachusetts blue blood Max Cleland lost when facing a moderate Georgia electorate :eyes:

The keys to victory are campaign messages and views on issues. The fact that the public no longer percieves the Bush administration to be doing a good job on just about any issue is the difference between 2002, 2004 and 2006, not the candidates.

[DavidDvorkin]

5. That's great. However

We also need to get rid of that horrible anachronism, the Electoral College, and have direct election of the president, with a runoff if necessary.

[Awsi Dooger]

6. Some of the numbers were not promising

Missouri went up to 37% self-identified conservatives this year, from 36% in 2004. Nevada had a major jump, from 34% in 2004 to 36% this year. Someone in this thread mentioned Arkansas. That state is more than 40% self-identified conservatives.

For reference purposes, Bush was 47-0 in 2000 and 2004 in any state where the exit polls indicated 35% or higher self-identified conservatives.

Colorado, New Hampshire and Virginia are moving our way in that category. In fact, Virginia dropped to 35% conservatives and rose to 21% liberals. That is within range of a true swing state, albeit slightly red leaning at this point on the federal level. Ohio's percentage of conservatives dropped as well, and that's very promising.

DUers won't want to hear this but you're not going to snag those borderline states with someone who is considered liberal. Not unless the candidate is very likable. If we insist on nominating someone who is easily tagged a liberal and with personal favorability ratings of 50/50 or worse, we're stuck with the same 20-odd states in play, and the margin of error favoring the other side. That's simply the reality of a nation with roughly 20% self-identified liberals and 34% conservatives. Until that number moves in our favor by a few net points we need to handicap the nominee accordingly. Clinton won twice in an era in which self-identified conservatives were higher percentage than now.

[WCGreen]

8. Clinton won in those states mainly because of Perot....

[skipos]

17. There is no evidence that Perot sapped more voted from Bush more than Clinton

enough to be a spoiler. Clinton still won all of the same states against Dole in 96 as he did Bush in 92 except for Montana and Colorado. In 92 Perot took 19%, in 1996 he took 8%.

And if you have some proof that Perot took more votes from the Republicans than the Democrats, I'd like to see it.

[WCGreen]

23. You can't compare 96 to 92 since Perot had played out

and Clinton was the incumbant....

No stats, just ike you have no stats to back your claim up...

Just a gut feeling... I also ran that year and saw how fired up Perot had people against the powers that be... In 1992, the powers that be were Bush, not Clinton...

I think Ohio would have gone for Bush in 92 if Perot hadn't been there... Several dem's lost in Ohio that year...

[skipos]

25. Actually, FairVote-Center for Voting and Democracy backs my claim up

I don't know much about FairVote, so I got this from wikipedia...

Perot's almost 19% of the popular vote made him the most successful third-party presidential candidate in terms of popular vote since Theodore Roosevelt in the 1912 election. Some conservative analysts believe that Perot acted as a spoiler in the election, primarily drawing votes away from Bush and allowing Clinton to win many states with less than a majority of votes. However, exit polling indicated that Perot voters would have split their votes fairly evenly among Clinton and Bush had Perot not been in the race, and an analysis by FairVote - Center for Voting and Democracy suggested that, while Bush would have won more electoral votes with Perot out of the race, he would not have gained enough to reverse Clinton's victory.

FairVote - Center for Voting and Democracy is a non-profit organization based in Takoma Park, Maryland that provides information to the public about the impact of voting systems on political representation, proportional representation, and voter turnout. It was founded in 1992 by scholars, civic leaders, and former elected officials such as John Anderson, the former Illinois member of Congress who ran for president in 1980. Since FairVote's founding, Rob Richie has served as its executive director and lead organizer.

[AX10]

9. We need more states than the one's Kerry won in 04'.

[Le Taz Hot]

16. We need to keep a close eye on California, though.

The red areas of the state are increasing. The Democrats' voter registration efforts are virtually nil here while the Republicans continue to pay $10.00 for each new registered Republican. Art Torres has GOT to go and Dean, as much as I love the man, needs to start focusing some major attention in California. Since our primary isn't until June, our voice doesn't count which is why we ended up with the "electable" John Kerry in '04 instead of Howard Dean. The Democrats use this state as an ATM and rarely give anything back. The Democrats ignore the rural areas and the Bay Arians and Southern California residents continue to dismiss and deride Central California (with their mouthful of salad).

The activists have been ringing the alarm bells for quite sometime now and no one's listening. That's a loss of 53 electoral college votes and you can't make that up with Montana or Wyoming.

[DemBones DemBones]

19. Is it legal to pay for registering someone to vote?

I don't know if we ever covered that in civics or American history and high school was a long time ago, anyway.

[slackmaster]

21. Thank you for mentioning this, Le Taz Hot

The Democratic party has been on the skids for many years in California.

We are consistently LOSING registration share by about twice the rate the GOP is losing ground.

http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/ror/15day_06gen/hist_reg_stats.pdf

State legislative districts that have been carefully crafted to isolate the conservative and Republican contingent are becoming blurred rapidly as people move into formerly unpopulated areas outside of the "safe" Democratic coastal cities.

Our Governor may be a RINO in the eyes of many, but he sure as hell is no Democrat. Historically, we've had Republicans holding that seat about 2/3 of the time. Our politics swing like a pendulum, often 180 degrees out of phase with the rest of the country.

http://alastair.familydallas.com/governors.html

http://www.governor.ca.gov/govsite/govsgallery/h/biography/index.html

[Kickin_Donkey]

22. Since 1996, the California primary during presidential election years ...

has been held in March.

In 1996, the primary was held on March 26.

In 2000, the primary was held on March 7.

In 2004, the primary was held on March 2.

The primary was moved up to March precisely to give California more of a say in the presidential race. But other states have moved up their primaries as well, so it's been a wash.

Doing a quick Net search, apparently the 2008 primary has been returned to its traditional June date, but I also found reports that it might be moved up to JANUARY.

[Le Taz Hot]

24. Thank you for the correction.

I was posting this very quickly while I was at work. However, the point remains -- by the time the primaries get to us, the easily-manipulatable Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary are over and the MSM media has already crowned our nominee for us. The rest is merely a dog-and-pony show.

Personally, I advocate having the primaries on the same day throughout the country. If California's primary were held in January, it would be Californian's who would largely decide the nominee which, I'm sure, would not make the rest of the country happy since we do have a tendency to march to our own trumpet. :P