Let's look at the Electoral College math and use it to focus on 2008

[ooga booga]

Look at the 2000 and 2004 Electoral College Maps and then check out the ones from 1992 and 1996 (see links below)

If you look at 1992, 1996 , 2000, and 2004, the thing that's likely to jump out at you is that Bill Clinton got roughly the SAME states that Democrats usually get PLUS just about every state in the Mississippi Valley. And, where's Clinton's political base? Arkansas -- which is one of this states on the Mississippi. Hmm? Do ya think that might have had something to do with Clinton's success? I, for one, think so. So, I'm more optimistic about possible Democratic candidates from that area. Wes Clark is from Arkansas. Tom Vilsack is from Iowa. Barak Obama is from Illinois. Al Gore didn't carry Tennessee, but do you think he could make a better play for that area? I'd like to think so, but I'd like to see some sign that the 2000 math wouldn't re-appear for him in 2008.

Personally, I don't see John Kerry getting any more or much more than he got last time, and I see Hillary Clinton basically duplicating Kerry's losing 2004 Electoral College math. She doesn't seem to get credit for being from Chicago or living a long time in Arkansas. In the Mississippi Valley, I think she's seen as an East Coast outsider like John Kerry.

We can handicap candidates right up to the Democratic and Republican nominations in 2008, and we'll undoubtedly continue to do that as indoor sport. However, for me, I need to see your Electoral College math for 2008. Convince me that your favorite candidate or ticket or the moment pulls those all important 270 Electoral College votes. Show how those 270 votes fall our way. Too often those early primaries throw the whole thing into a cocked hat and we end up with someone who simply can't pull that 270. I remember how my heart sank when Kerry pulled out of Missouri like in September 2004. That battleground state and the others around it were ALREADY slipping away.

All I'm saying is let's find a way to keep it "270" real in the early stages so that we've got a ticket that'll actually win and drive public policy and Supreme Court nominations for 2009-2012 and beyond.


2004 Electoral Vote Map
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/electoral.college/

2000 Electoral Vote Map
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/electoral.college/
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/election/map.htm

Any Electoral Vote Map in US History (Unfortunately, DEM=Red and REP=Blue in these)
http://presidentelect.org/e2004.html

[BluegrassDem]

1. People on here tend to not think of EC

I don't know why, but it seems like that little fact of the Constitution gets lost. People get emotional about candidates when we start thinking real long and hard about which candidates can get us 270 EV's. Or else, there'll be another Repug president.

I think any Democrat candidate will carry the Democratic states along both coasts and the midwestern states like Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. We need a candidate that can bring along states like Iowa, Missouri, Ohio, West Virginia, New Mexico, and maybe Colorado, Virginia, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Nevada.

Now I will list the candidates I think can do it. It's not my presidential preferences, but I'm looking at just hard math.

1. Evan Bayh: He would carry Indiana and likely bring along KY and OH.
2. Bill Richardson: Would carry New Mexico, and possibly NV and CO.
3. Wes Clark: He could win Arkansas and help in MO.

I really don't think Hillary Clinton can flip a single red state, unfortunately.

Barack Obama is intriguing because he will get a HUGE black turnout, unlike anything this country has ever witnessed. That alone will make him more competitive than Hillary in the EC.

John Edwards can't even win N.C. He may do well in Iowa, but I doubt he could win the EC.

[ooga booga]

3. See that's my point. Let's begin with end in mind.

I agree with your take. Hillary doesn't flip ANY of the states that went red in the last 2 presidential races.

We have some REAL opportunities out there in Missouri, in Montana, in New Mexico, in Colorado, in Ohio, in Iowa, in Virginia. All over the place. Let's focus on the candidates that can energize some of those places to flip over to BLUE!

Hillary isn't going to be able to bring in Montana. She just won't. Neither will Kerry in my opinion. Now, Wes Clark is another story. I think Montana could really get behind him especially with the relationships he's now got with Tester and Schweister (sp?). Apparently, Jon Tester only wanted Clark to come in and campaign for him. I'm sure that he'd be eager to return the favor.

Evan Bayh is another one that could energize Middle America.

We've got to play hard for the middle of the country, and, to do that, we'll probably need someone from the Midwest or the West. Period.

Let's play to win. Let's keep that 270 in mind.

[Conscious Confucius]

8. The fictitious Black Vote...

I don't see even Obama pulling a huge black vote. It's just like the youth vote that everybody mentions EVERY huge election that NEVER turns out.

[elocs]

2. Math is not a strong suit here at DU. Many do not know how to count well. n/t

[Brewman_Jax]

4. Since we're stuck with the Electoral College

we need proportional voting, so it isn't just "winner take all". Since that is at the state level, the Constitution shouldn't require an amendment.

[ooga booga]

5. I'd go for proportional allocation of EC votes,but.....

We should all live so long as to see THAT happen in a plurality of the 48 states that don't have it now. Wasn't it Colorado that just tried and failed to get that in?

Proportional allocation would go a long way to head off that nasty scenario where the candidate with the largest popular vote LOSES to the one who gets the better EC vote math. It wouldn't rule it out completely, but it's make it less likely.

However, with the EC vote set up we have now, I hope we at least learn to play the game as it is and play to win.

[suston96]

6. Electoral college is a time bomb...

Too many forget what Florida's Republican legislature almost did in 2000 - throwing out the popular vote if Gore won it after the recount - and the legislature picking the electoral slate. (It was on live TV).

The Constitution allows what Florida started doing. That was halted when the US Supreme Court stopped the count and decided the election. The only solution is obvious - direct election. Federal elections in the grasp of the states has been a dismal failure.

Oh, before I go? Aren't the majority of the state legislatures now Democrat, I mean - Democratic? Yeah, no big deal then, eh?

[blm]

7. The problem is that it's DNC strategy you're criticizing. Had 50state strategy been in place

in the years before 2000, 2002 and 2004 the results would have been much different.

The targetted state strategy developed after the 1994 GOP takeover allowed the COLLAPSE of the party infrastructures in too many red and swing states, so that when they were actually competitive in 2000, 2002 and 2004, there was no DNC or party infrastructure strong enoughj to counter the vote suppression and vote stealing tactics employed by the much stronger RNC throughout those years.

There is no way a Dem nominee known in the spring of the election year can make up in 5months, the building that the DNC needs to be doing in the YEARS BEFORE the election.

Presidential campaigns TAP INTO the DNC structures in each state and county to compete there. If there is NO structure in place or it has been weakened to the point of useless as in many counties in the south, there is nothing that can be done by the presidential campaign - the DNC cannot even assure that their votes can be secured or counted in those counties.