Why is winning big blue states more important than winning red states?

[ButterflyBlood]

I don't get the logic of the Hillary people here at all. Where do we need to make gains? Are we worried that if we nominate Obama McCain will win New York? Why is the stronger candidate the one who has little appeal outside of New York and California?

[Bonobo]

1. That entire ridiculous line of reasoning is based on the premise that Hil voters WON'T vote Obama.

It. is. simply.

A fairytale.

lol

[ButterflyBlood]

2. And that Hillary's states are in danger of being lost

Seriously, if you want to argue against Obama's electability you can do better than saying he'd lose New York and Massachusetts to McCain.

[LSparkle]

3. Yeah, remember Dukakis (or was it Mondale?)

Who ONLY won Massachusetts ... I'm not worried about Mass. in the general election.

[ButterflyBlood]

5. That was McGovern

Dukakis won several states and Mondale only won my home state which gives us the longest streak of voting Democratic than any other state, and oh yeah, we voted OBAMA.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

4. Because Hillary likely wouldn't win many "red" states in the GE.

[Gato Moteado]

25. neither would obama. remember, we only need OH or FL

the repukes need both of those big states and we only need one. we'll win all the other traditional blue states with hill or obama. what we should be worried about is FL and OH.

[MagsDem]

41. Nah, she is a lock in AR, and looks good for TN and MO

... perhaps FL. Obama can win none of those. Not a chance in hell.

[dogman]

6. The electoral college.

Why rob banks? That's where the money is. Winning a state in the primary that will vote GOP in the general is not the answer. On the other hand, bringing in new voters and possible coat tails would be good. There is no guarantee that is what will happen. The possibility that new voters will become apathetic after the general election is a potential downside.

[ButterflyBlood]

9. And California and New York are the swing states?

Yeah, those are away more important to target than states like Missouri, Iowa and Virginia...

[dogman]

16. This is the Primary.

Kerry won Iowa in the primary. Ohio seemed more important in the general.

[ButterflyBlood]

19. And how does winning California and New York show a candidate has more appeal in the general?

Common sense dictates to expand the map and win in the general you need more than the base.

[dogman]

39. You have to win your base, first.

Expanding doesn't equal winning. Votes against your primary opponent aren't guaranteed to be there in the general. There is also the question, what do you get when you win? Illinois elected Obama as it's Senator. That's a vote i wish I could do over. I would rather have voted for a candidate who would represent me.

[ButterflyBlood]

43. So Obama's going to lose the base to McCain?

Then again with all the angry Hillaryites here promising to vote McCain in the general...

[MagsDem]

50. OMG, this is why we never win

Right here. This is the same ignorant crap we heard when hoardes insisted that a MA liberal would take states like NM, CO, AZ. Ugh. It's like we simply insist, out of pure ignorance, on nominating a candidate that is unelectable in the GE. Worse yet, our "base" doesn't get it. Year after year after year. So of course they just repeat the same dumb shit the next time.

[MagsDem]

44. Or win your base last, since there is no after primary wins

for dem candidates. Beacause we insist on nominating an unelectable candidate.

[Barack_America]

7. Because Red States are unclean?

I don't understand the bias either.

It goes along with the people who are insulted that Obama has asked Republicans to consider voting Democratic.

[msongs]

8. because red states don't vote for a dem pres in the general? nt

[ButterflyBlood]

11. And to win the election, we have to make them

Can you please explain your electoral strategy that consists of winning only California and a scattering of northeastern states?

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. A lot of those red states have blue senators and blue governors.

Given the right incentive, they'll go with a blue president, too. But Hillary's not the one to flip em.

[MagsDem]

51. Okay, which ones will Obama win?

Do tell. I'd love to hear your theory.

[BooScout]

10. Because.......(a political lesson for beginners)

History shows that the Red States are much more likely to STAY red for the GE. In other words, they will vote for whoever the Republican nominee is. We (the Dems) may pick up a state or two but the red/blue divide has pretty much stood since the Nixon Southern Strategy to divide along social and cultural divides.

The last Democratic President to make any inroads into the Red States was Bill Clinton....and he only managed to do that by moving (or being perceived to move to the center). The Blue states are best representative of our base. We can expect to win in those states. To win the WH we have to win the Blue States and take a few Red Ones as well or we won't get the electoral votes to take the WH.

If the Republicans take any of our Blue States then we are screwed. So far, Obama has taken a lot of Red States. Winning a Red State in the primary BY NO MEANS means that that state will vote blue in the GE.

[ButterflyBlood]

13. Right, so we can't nominate Obama and risk losing New York

Is that what you're saying?

[MagsDem]

29. I would think CA is more a danger than NY for sure

He didn't do well with the hispanic vote out there.

[BooScout]

32. Me too.....

Not just that ..........but the fact that California put Arnold in the Governor's Mansion.

I don't think a lot of people think past the primaries. I have always said I like all the candidates this season, but I have been around long enough to know we have to go with the candidate that can win the GE.

[MagsDem]

37. Well you know our base.....

They just got to have an unelectable candidate in the GE. Damn, 4 yrs ago we were having this exact same conversation about a MA liberal. Same clueless people claimed we were crazy. LOL -- our party is a joke. I swear I am going indie. I can't take the stupidity anymore.

[BooScout]

55. Tell me about it.........

My head hurts from banging it up against the wall so much.:banghead:

[ButterflyBlood]

48. Kansas, Wyoming, Montana and Oklahoma all have Dem Governors

Hawaii, Connecticut and Rhode Island have Republican Governors. In 2004 so did New York, Massachusetts and Maryland.

Gubernatorial elections don't mean shit compared to federal ones.

[MagsDem]

52. LOL -- and which one of those is going blue in the GE

gawd, this would hilarious if it wasn't so tragic.

[ButterflyBlood]

65. Duh, THAT WAS MY FUCKING POINT

Electing a Governor of one party doesn't mean jack shit as to how a state'll vote in the general election.

[ButterflyBlood]

45. Oh sure. They'll just vote for McCain.

:rofl:

[MagsDem]

53. Why wouldn't the hispanic vote go to McCain in CA?

It will certainly go to him in AZ. They love his amnesty bill.

[BooScout]

59. They voted for Reagan and the Terminator......

You laugh.........NOTHING is guaranteed in politics. Learn it the hard way.

[BooScout]

30. What I am saying.......

....Is that the candidate that wins the Blue states in the primary is the candidate that is most likely to win that state in the GE. The Blue States are generally 'must have' states in a Presidental Election for the Democrats.

If Obama wins the nomination, I have no idea whether he will lose any Blue States. That depends on who the Republican candidate is and the mood of the country come November.

[susankh4]

70. Yes it does...

And the Reich, via Fox News, is already beefing up their coverage of the "war on terror."

Do you think it is a coincidence that Bush is calling for the death penalty for six Gitmo prisoners now? All the while he is telling *HIS* public that Obama will invade Pakistan and cozy up to Iran??? And, incidentally endorsing McCain as the man for the job of keeping Islam at bay.....

[cloudythescribbler]

36. Prof Booscout, I beg to differ with you (LOL) ...

First of all, in 1976, if you go back and check the election maps, you'll see that MOST of the states Carter carried were southern and border states, as he was the first deep-south president in living memory. On the other hand, New Jersey and CA, among other places, went for Ford in a close election. The red-blue state divide's parameters are fairly recent, mainly starting in 2000 (though discernible in 1988).

Carter carried VERY FEW states in 1980, including Georgia. Clinton, though not as strong in southern and border states in 1992 as Carter in 1976, did very respectably well, and not just in Arkansas, against daddy Bush (remember Ann Braden's famous speech at the 1988? Convention when she said "this is what a REAL Texas accent sounds like".

There is much argument that it is who does best in the "purple" or swing states that is especially crucial, and that how the candidate does in the RED states arguably is more telling than how the Dem primary candidate does in the 'blue' states. States like MA, NY, NJ, CA, etc are likely to go for the Democrats no matter what. States like Iowa, Missouri, Colorado, New Mexico (close vote), Virginia, Maryland, and possibly North Carolina are in play.

AND THIS IS CRUCIAL: whichever Democrat is at the top of the ticket might have very little impact on other elections in states like MA, but in areas like say Kentucky, almost certain to vote Repuke in November, or Missouri (red-purple), having Hillary at the top of the ticket is POISON for the Democrats all down the line. This may be one of the key reasons that highly involved Democrats in red-state caucuses in places like Nebraska, Idaho and North Dakota go for Obama -- to AVOID the negative coat-tails of a Hillary Clinton nomination

[MagsDem]

64. My living memory is longer than yours

Because it has been red versus blue since Johnson left office -- that would be Nixon 1968. That is the price we paid for pushing the civil rights bill through. And it was a well worth it. But at some point we have to start nominating electable candidates for president, or we were going to continue to be kicked in the ass by the rethug party on our agenda.

Now, tell me again which of these states that are red that Obama can win, and tell me why. I'd appreciate hearing the Obama supporter theories on this.

[cloudythescribbler]

68. I would say: Ohio, WI, Iowa, Colorado, poss NM, poss MO , NV, WV,FL

Obama has suggested that Mississippi (35% black) could be put into play if he were the nominee (can't remember exactly where I read that).

Ohio is a state that is turning blue. It is faces economic stagnation and the TRILLIONS continuing the war will cost -- as all around the country -- should be quite unpopular. Kerry really won Ohio in 04, and now the state government is controlled by Democrats

Colorado is also a state that is trending blue, and is a state where the kind of "new" politics Obama projects could do very well, and not just among those who caucused. This is merely guesstimate I admit.

Iowa was another state where Obama showed his strength. It was carried by Gore in 00 and should be one where a Democrat popular with Independents and Republicans should do well, and not just among caucusgoers.

Minnesota is trending red, but still has a strong Democratic Party tradition. As in Wisconsin, the war is very unpopular in that region I am informed, and the COSTS of war should be a heavy factor as the economy is stagnating.

New Mexico and West Virginia (the latter carried by Dukakis, but trending red in prez elections) I also think are very good possibilities for the Democrats.

Missouri was carried by Barack Obama, and pols there suggest having him at the top of the ticket is far preferable to Hillary Clinton. It (along with these other examples) is a shot, though no one says and of these are 'in the bag'.

Obama has a good record on Yucca mountain ... Florida another key swing state in play ...

Of course, one factor has been Obama's ability to appeal to broader and broader constituencies. It is hard to really calculate where this thing is headed. I AM confident that he would be a stronger candidate, and in my view a better, more thoughtful president, than Hillary Clinton. Though their platforms are similar, I think the country and the Democratic Party needs to get beyond the Democratic Leadership Council and the 'party of NAFTA'.

[katty]

12. well for one thing, NY and CA are the financial pillars of the USA

and the most populous, lots and lots of PEOPLE.

[ButterflyBlood]

17. And aren't going to vote for McCain anyway

We're going to need more than that to win the election.

[katty]

21. after the GOP machine scare tactics eat Obama alive

don't assume so early that he will get all the red states in the dem column in the GE like he is doing now.

[MagsDem]

26. Hell, he isn't going to get ANY of them

That's why he is unelectable in the GE.

[BringBigDogBack]

14. It's not,

it's just shitty logic.

If everyone would take a second to think about why that is, a light bulb just may flicker...

[XemaSab]

15. I'm in California and it's stupid.

Obama got 1.75 MILLION votes here.

If you look at the counties that Hillary won, she did very well in like, Fresno, Bakersfield, Merced, rural counties with prisons, parts of Southern California, and out in the desert.

She didn't win San Francisco, Oakland, or Sacramento. :D

Of all the counties I've lived in, the two she won were Shasta and Madera, which are redneck utopias. :P

Not to race-bait, but I think the Hispanic voters did bring it for her, but between Obama and McCain? No contest... they'll go for Obama.

[MagsDem]

23. The OP has constructed a straw man

No one has suggested what s/he is suggesting. The OP either misses the point deliberately or doesn't understand the previous discussions about this. The issue is that a dem winning red states in the primary doesn't mean diddly if they can't win red states in the GE. And unfortunately the chances are pretty nil that Obama can win any southern states in Nov, whereas Hillary can.

[RaleighNCDUer]

40. Can you support that? Or are you merely assuming that a black

man cannot win in the south?

There are two misconceptions implicit in that statement -- that Obama can't win, and that Hillary can. You have NO concept of the depth of dislike for Hillary in southern states. She'd get NO crossover from republicans and damn little from independents, not to mention losing progressive Democrats. At the same time, the anti-Hillary vote would turn out in ungodly numbers, particularly among evangelicals who would most likely just stay home in a contest between McCain and Obama.

OTOH, and yahoo who is so prejudiced that he will not vote for Obama because of him being black, will also never vote for Hillary - it is just not conceivable.

There are plenty of southern blacks in state and national office - they weren't all elected because of racial jerrymandering. White voters have supported black candidates for decades, now, at all levels of government, from city council to governor.

Everything looks a little different from here, on the ground.

[MagsDem]

56. I lived there for 12 yrs, and I travel there several times a month

I have dozens upon dozens of clients throughout the south, so I am there a lot. I know there is plenty of racial prejudice there, even among dems and indies. What southern state do you think he will win?

[MagsDem]

24. The OP has constructed a straw man

No one has suggested what s/he is suggesting. The OP either misses the point deliberately or doesn't understand the previous discussions about this. The issue is that a dem winning red states in the primary doesn't mean diddly if they can't win red states in the GE. And unfortunately the chances are pretty nil that Obama can win any southern states in Nov, whereas Hillary can.

[Raine]

35. I'm in CA too and I agree

Obama will carry CA no doubt in my mind.

[MagsDem]

18. No one said winning blue states was a factor

Presumably either dem nominee can win blue states. The point is winning red states in the primary is meaningless in the GE if the candidate can't bring any of them into blue. The problem with Obama is he will not be able to win a single red state in the GE, whereas Clinton can.

[stray cat]

20. Sure a good thing Texas doesn't matter at all when Hillary wins it.

[FrenchieCat]

27. It doesn't make sense unless a racist type thinker would literally believe

that Democrats in California, New York, New Jersey and Massachussets would rather vote for a War Hawk Old ass Washington insider Republican than they would a Black man.

That's really the only explanation that I can think of. :shrug:

They don't understand that when people know Barack, they begin to judge him by his character, and not his color, or even by his middle name.

These folks that are so afraid, well, they were the ones that support the War voting candidate.....who caved to the Republicans. So I am not surprised.

They don't realize that Hillary only won big states because many didn't yet know who Obama was. They voted safe. Now, the more they get to know, the more the like.

It's really that simple. Obama is most electable, and will bring with him a majority proof congress (which will include Dem Representives from Red States) with him.

[MagsDem]

33. Again, blue states aren't the huge concern

Although it is entirely concievable that CA might be difficult for Obama. The concern is the fact that racial politics will keep Obama from winning any southern states. We can't win without taking a few southern states. No dem candidate has ever won the presidential election without doing that. And it's doubtful Obama can do it.

But hey, Dems have a fine tradition of nominating unelectable candidates, so why stop now?

[FrenchieCat]

42. I don't believe that Cali will be a problem for Obama.

I'm in California. You are wrong.

And you "want" to believe that racial politicis will keep Obama from winning.

You will be proven wrong. Just like those who thought that Being a Catholic would keep Kennedy from winning.

Hillary is Nixon to Obama's Kennedy in 1960.......It may be close, but not close enough.

Meet the next First Family and shit on yourself!

[MagsDem]

46. Your in CA so I am wrong? LOL LOL LOL

But you have proven you don't know shit about the electoral college.

[BooScout]

Bullshit and stop calling the race card.

NJ has gone Red before......for Bush I and so did California. And that had nothing to do with any race but the race for the WH.

Obama is not necessarily the most electible because you love him so much.

And what in the world is a 'majority proof congress' anyway???

[Raine]

28. It's not

I'm in blue CA and I'm sure that anyone who has a "D" after their name will win the GE. The US is 50 states and all of them are important in winning not just the blue ones.

[MagsDem]

38. So which southern states do you think Obama can win?

Because I would say the answer is none.

[FrenchieCat]

47. What you say doesn't matter......

because you are not basing what you are saying on sound facts.

Too bad those 100,000 Indie votes weren't counted in California.

[MagsDem]

60. These discussions are over your head -- have a nice evening

[RaleighNCDUer]

49. Virginia. Georgia. Florida. North Carolina. Louisiana.

Then there's the border states: Missouri, Kansas, W. Virginia.

Which do you think Hillary could win? Be honest, now.

[MagsDem]

61. You cannot say that with a straight face

If you are saying it with a straight face then no wonder we keep nominating unelectable candidates. Do us and yourself a favor -- look up the margins that Bush won all those states by in 2004. It was huge. He won GA by a million votes alone.

Did you folks really go all ape shit about Obama without even giving a thought to electoral politics in the GE? Gawd, no wonder we get screwed every 4 yrs like this.

As for Hillary, she will easily take AR (her home state and where she was first lady for 12 yrs), and has a decent shot at FL (senior voters), TN (AR neighbor), and MO (trending blue and not adverse to electing women to statewide office).

[RaleighNCDUer]

66. You talk about unelectable?

McCain is not Bush. And Obama is not Kerry.

The repukes, in 04, were still voting on Bush's war - and the vast majority don't want it anymore. But McCain still does.

But more than wanting McCain, they DON'T want Hillary. Obama could handily take GA, and NC, but Hillary couldn't take either. I think either of them might take FL and MO, although MO has been trending more moderate. For most of the south, the evangelicals will stay home rather than vote for McCain, but they will turn out to vote AGAINST Hillary.

And what makes AR a lock for Hillary? Sure, her husband serve a couple terms as gov there, but he was followed by fucking HUCKABEE! I mean, c'mon.

It's not that I think that Obama is god's gift - but just that I know that Hillary is wrong and WILL lose. She takes advice from the wrong people, follows the wrong policies, and CANNOT compete with McCain. The DLC hasn't done a right thing in 20 years. We can't put their nominee up front.

[BooScout]

63. Obama will not win Georgia that's for sure......

He may have won the primary but he won't win Georgia. I don't think Hillary could win it either. I base that fact on the fact that I lived in Georgia for a good lon while up until just a couple of years ago. Georgia will go Red.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

31. Blue state / red state, it doesn't matter

Blue / red makes a big difference in the general election. This is the primary. More Dems are voting than Reps, maybe because it's a more interesting race.

It has no bearing on November.

[MagsDem]

34. The post /thread is about the GE

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

69. You're right. I had it backwards

Never mind ...

:blush:

[nomorewhopper]

54. its just spin and sour grapes. a cheap way to dismiss obama's success.

since hillary won california and new york (and is up in the polls in ohio), the supporters have to somehow spin those results as being more "meaningful" with red states as being less so.

PS - wait til you see what happens in ohio (of course by then the only they will spin it such that all that maters is the northeast and california, or something)


edited to add: since the news is almost entirely doom and gloom for the hillary camp, i think desperation is starting to set in and that's why we're seeing them clinging so hard to any of their perceived strengths.

[Hippo_Tron]

57. Because many Californians and New Yorkers arrogantly believe that the should pick the nominee

Since they are big states and loyal to the party.

I'm not saying that it's true of all California and New York Democrats. But every time there's a discussion about what primary states should go first, many Californians and New Yorkers think they should be entitled to go first because of their population and loyalty to the party.

We used to have Democratic Senators from places like Idaho and Wyoming until Democrats in the blue states decided that we should put any focus on red states.

[MagsDem]

62. Who said that?

Nobody. But is it really too much to ask the base of this party to even give some / any thought to how your candidate is going to win the GE before you insist we nominate them? Do you think we get a gold star on our heads for coming in second every four years? It get so fucking old dealing with a base that just doesn't think strategically. It's not like we didn't have decent candidates that were electable, you know.

Do we ALWAYS have to pick the last electable person we can?

[RaleighNCDUer]

67. Those blue-state dems that dismiss the red states are DLC,

and Hillary is their candidate.

If we EVER want to be effective again, we have to purge the DLC neo-libs and return to our Democratic roots. No more co-opting republican positions for the sake of winning. If we don't, what we will get will be, at best, one or two terms like Bill's which will vanish within months of the repukes taking control again.

We don't just need change. We need PERMANENT change, such as we got with FDR. Single-payer healthcare, not mandated health insurance that enriches republican insurance company CEOs.

[Hippo_Tron]

58. Dupe n/t