A serious question: who could actually win a few of the red states in November?

[Mr.Fitzgibbons]

Hillary or Obama? I am curious to see what people actually think about this. The democratic nominee will have to win Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania, and it would help the cause to win a red state or two. Is this actually possible for either candidate? How would McCain fare vs. Hillary or Obama in Ohio (blue collar dem vote is crucial there) or Florida?

[Midlodemocrat]

1. Either one could win Virginia.

[Seen the light]

2. Look at it like this

Either Clinton or Obama would be better candidates than John Kerry was. And McCain is going to be a weaker candidate than Bush because he won't have the full Establishment behind him and there will be a sizable chunk of conservatives that stay home. And Kerry was only a stolen Ohio away from winning the presidency.

Either one of our candidates can win the swing states against McCain.

[TexasObserver]

3. Hillary has zero chance of winning any red state. Obama can win 10 of them

give or take a couple, he'll win a few red states in the South, the West, and the Midwest.

[democrat2thecore]

4. I agree - The dislike of "The Clinton's" makes most Red states lost for her - Obama can win several.

[TexasObserver]

14. anyone who lives in a red state knows Hillary will never carry a one of them

[Blue_In_AK]

5. It's conceivable, although not terribly likely,

that Obama could win here over McCain since McCain only managed to come up with 1800 Republican votes here out of 12,000 in their "presidential preference vote," and is about as popular in Alaska as Hillary (which isn't very). Obama, on the other hand, took 75% of the Democratic caucus goers statewide, or about 6,000 votes. The majority of voters here, something like 54%, describe themselves as independent or undeclared, so it's just a matter of if they're more inclined to lean a little left of center or a little right or just stay home (best case scenario).

Hillary Clinton will never win a general election in Alaska.

[Bicoastal]

7. I wish Alaska was the first primary of the Election season, not Iowa or NH...

...everybody would be trooping around the AK hinterlands in January, dealing with freezing tempratures and 24-hour darkness while trying to find pockets of support in Barrow, Nome, and Fairbanks...

Hey, at the very least--we'd find out who REALLY wanted it.

[Blue_In_AK]

11. Nobody really cares about us.

In fact, the only speech that was made at our caucus was by a supporter of "Uncommitted," who was urging that position so that maybe, just maybe, one or the other of the candidates would come up here and tell us why we should support them. We don't get any campaign ads at all during the primary and very few even for the general election. The only ones I've seen at all have been on cable and only a couple -- for Ron Paul.

Still, people were very enthusiastic here about having a caucus earlier than past years, on Super Tuesday. It was below zero that night here in Anchorage and still about 4,000 people showed up, some walking several blocks or even miles to get there, when the traffic and parking were so backed up.

ed. I have to admit that this is a really expensive place to campaign. There are very few roads (maybe five paved highways that really go anywhere in the whole state) and a plane ticket from Anchorage to anywhere else in Alaska costs as much or more as traveling Outside.

[XemaSab]

17. I had a friend yesterday float the theory that the strong support for Obama in the West

is due in part to a libertarian streak among democrats out here.

Which is a wierd thought, but if Obama's somehow drawing out closet libertarians, then you may be right. :)

[Blue_In_AK]

19. That's possible, although I personally don't see Obama

as particularly Libertarian. He does seem to be less affiliated with a Democratic "machine," however, and "different," so that may be what they're thinking. I actually thought Ron Paul would do better here than he did (although he did beat out McCain, who came in last) because he is much more in line with the "rugged individualist" tag that so many old-time Alaskans associate themselves with (while they're feasting at the federal earmark trough, I might add).

Politics is weird, though, the past couple of years in Alaska since all of the Republican corruption trials and ongoing investigations. There's definitely a changed atmosphere from the days of the "Corrupt Bastards Club."

[sunonmars]

6. for a start Tennesee and Arkasas will go Clinton, more likely Florida too

and I'd bet Ohio as well.

[redstateblues]

8. No chance Hillary wins Tennessee in the general

Don't be fooled by the primary results. The depth of dislike for Hillary in TN is wide and deep- Al Gore couldn't win TN. I think Obama might have a remote chance

[PaDem]

10. No way no how..........

does Tennessee go to HRC. Florida and Ohio are long shots at best too, especially Florida. We're fools (Dem Party) if we go all in for Ohio and FLA again.

[PaDem]

9. Why do we have to win Florida and Ohio?????

We wasted TONS of resources on these two states last time around. We stake our chances on those two states again this year, we're cooked. VA, CO, MO, WV, NM, and IA are all states we have a better chance at swinging. I sure hope people making decisions this summer are willing to defy this conventional wisdom that it's all about Florida and Ohio.

[Cosmocat]

12. IMO ...

especially with the delegate fiasco, Florida is a lost cause ...

I think Ohio might flip ... We have to hold Pa, but I agree that they should not get caught up in Florida, and try to work on flipping other states ...

Hill can't win a red state ... Just can't ... You can see even from her primary strategy against Obama that she is doing the Clinton 96, Gore and Kerry 51% gambit ...

[Maddy McCall]

13. Mississippi will go for whatever Republican is nominated.

Republicans could nominate a potted plant, and Mississippi would vote for it over the Dem nominee.

[robbedvoter]

15. Either one Virginia, New Mexico. Hillary: Florida

[XemaSab]

16. Let's see... I'm only going to speak for Obama here

Bill Clinton in 1992 won Louisiana, Georgia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Kentucky, Montana, Nevada, West Virginia, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Colorado, Missouri, Iowa, and Ohio. He "missed" Florida and Arizona.

These are our "swing states" for the purposes of this discussion.

----------

By 1996, Clinton had lost Georgia, Colorado, and Montana, but he picked up Arizona and Florida.

In 2000, Gore (supposedly) lost all the above states except New Mexico.

In 2004 Kerry (supposedly) lost all of the above states except New Hampshire.

----------

Let's start with the South.

Let's pretend for the moment that all the Black voters will go for Obama. According to the census, there are HUGH Black populations in the South. Most of the states in the South have Black populations close to 30%.



Additionally, Southern voters are really underwhelmed with McCain. He's secular Yankee and doesn't pretend to be a fundie. Barack, on the other hand, was baptized as an adult and is open about his Christian faith. It'll be ironic to have a candidate on our side more comfortable talking about faith than the Republican, but hey... good times.

I suspect that this will lead fundies to stay home, leaners to vote for our guy, and our solid base to turn out in droves.

(All this is assuming he can shut down the "Muslim" rumor :( )

But I think we "might could" shift Louisiana, Georgia, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Florida back over to our side with these factors. Or at least give the Republicans a run for their money. I think we might get Virginia this time too.

----------

In the Northeast I think it's going to be open and shut in all the states. I can't fathom we'd lose New Hampshire.

----------

In the Midwest, West Virginia, Ohio, Missouri, and Iowa are the critical states. I don't have much of a sense for any of those states, but it's heartening to see that McCain got 1% of the vote in West Virginia, and didn't even place in Iowa. I think we'll get Iowa this time too.

----------

Out West I think we're never going to take Montana. I also think you've got to give Arizona to McCain, sadly.

This leaves Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado.

McCain did really, really poorly in Nevada, getting 13% of the vote. I think we can get Nevada. In Colorado McCain got 19% of the vote. I think in both of these states there are little Mormon and fundie pockets that are just really turned off by the man and they might just stay home.

I don't have a strong feeling for New Mexico at all. :shrug:

----------

In summary, of Louisiana, Georgia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Kentucky, Montana, Nevada, West Virginia, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Colorado, Missouri, Iowa, Ohio, Florida, and Arizona we're not looking bad at all.

We've got 252 electoral votes totally sewn up, while they've got 135, assuming they get Montana and Arizona, and we capture all of the Northeast. We'd need 18 more electoral votes, while they'd need 135.

Ohio alone would push us over the top. Ditto for Florida.

Colorado (with 9), Nevada (with 5), and New Mexico (with 5) would get us there.

Iowa (7) and Missouri (11) would also do it.

Virginia (13) and West Virginia (5) would do it very nicely as well.

Tennessee (11) and Kentucky (8) would be sweet.

Arkansas (6), Georgia (15), and Louisiana (9) are longer shots, but hey, Clinton managed to get those states for him in 1992.

I think Barack can pull this off DECISIVELY. I really do. :D

[Orangepeel]

18. We aren't going to win Florida with either nominee

Florida wasn't particularly close in 2004 and McCain will do better than bush did. He can associate himself with Gov. Crist rather than bush and he'll do well among older voters, independents, military, and Cuban-Americans.

We can win Ohio, Missouri and New Hampshire. *Maybe* Virginia. I have a crazy inclination that Obama could win Kansas because he has some familial ties there and the craziest of Kansan crazies may not want to vote for McCain and might stay home.