I just want to point out: Reagan turned MA and NY red

[Recursion]

I'm so indescribably sick of hearing that this or that state is "irrevocably" red and would never send Democratic electors to the EC.

Reagan won Massachusetts. Reagan won Hawaii. Reagan won New York. (I'll give him California for obvious reasons.)

If MA and NY and HI can go red, it's idiotic to say that CO, KS, or the Dakotas can't go blue. Christ, how are we still even having a debate about a 50-state strategy? Asking people for their votes doesn't guarantee they'll vote for us, but abandoning the state to the other side pretty much guarantees they won't.

We lost our candidates with the broadest appeal (Edwards and Richardson) early. I've moved towards Obama because he's at least trying to pick up where they left off (and for other reasons).

Look at the states Reagan turned red. Don't tell me a states' electoral votes are somehow predetermined by the state's character. MA went red: there's no state that can't go blue, if we work for them.

[BklynChick]

1. great point.

[Zachstar]

2. K&R People need to understand this. It could happen but it wont if this race keeps on this path.

It will take multiple months of hard work.

[NJSecularist]

Reagan won the popular vote in 1980 by 9%

Yet he still only won Massachusetts by .15% percent of the vote. Only 3000 votes.

If Obama wins the popular vote by 9-10% like Reagan did, then he will put red States like Kansas and the Dakotas in play.

But if he only wins the popular vote by 1-2%, he will not put those states in play.

And BTW, Colorado is not a red state. It's a purple state. A state that Obama has a chance to win.

[Recursion]

14. Neither McCain nor Obama depress turnout

Not saying the GOP won't try; I just mean that the past four elections have been with candidates who by themselves depress turnout. Interesting times... I think a lot of pundit-esque truisms will be turned on their heads this time, much like in 1980.

[DJ13]

3. The people that say our candidate cant win certain states......

......only say that because they know their candidate has no intentions of fighting for every state.

Some Democrats refuse to accept that the strategy of focusing on a narrow "safe" set of blue states has been a losing position since Reagan in 1980.

Even Bill Clinton's use of a key state strategy was a failure, as he would have lost both of his elections if there hadnt been a strong enough third party candidate to syphon off GOP votes.

[Lyric]

4. Democrats are far more open-minded than Republicans

and therefore are far more likely to consider voting "red" than Republicans are to consider voting "blue". Conservatives are stubborn, narrow-minded creatures as a rule, and MUCH more loyal to their ideology than we are to ours. ("We" meaning anyone even slightly left of center.)

Obama is not going to turn any red states blue. We can always hope for the best, but a realistic view of how conservatives tend to behave simply does not bear this notion out.

[Recursion]

6. Right, that's why Kansas has a Republican governor

Oh... wait... they have a female Democratic governor.

Christ, the elitism in your post is tangible and revolting. Republicans are not less moral or less intelligent than us. They've stopped voting for us because we've turned our backs on them.

[Lyric]

21. Bullshit.

Yes they ARE less intelligent and a HELL of a lot less moral than we are, otherwise they wouldn't be fucking Republicans. Elitism?? Any other right-wing memes you want to toss out while you're at it??

We didn't turn our backs on Republicans. They turned their backs on common sense, decency and justice when they embraced the "Moral Majority", gleefully dismantled all of the regulations that protected us from corporate rape, and turned "liberal" into a slur. I have no desire to make common cause to bigots, liars, thieves, and morons.

Dream your pipe dream if you will, but history has shown us the truth--conservatives aren't interested in compromise or compassion. They want THEIR way, RIGHT now, and to hell with anyone who stands in their way.

There is no middle ground. We are right, they are wrong. It's about time our leaders grew a freaking spine and came right out and said it, too.

[sudopod]

30. Honest people can be honestly wrong

especially if they are misled.

[Recursion]

31. There we go. Of course it can't be *our* fault we lost their votes...

...it can't be the fact that we turned our backs on their concerns and worries, nor the fact that we spent decades mocking them after they left us. No, it must be because they are bad and ignorant people.

[Lyric]

33. Of course it's not our fault.

it can't be the fact that we turned our backs on their concerns and worries

Their concerns and worries? You mean like their utter terror of the idea of gay people gaining equality? Their loathing of the fact that women are allowed to control their own reproduction? Their concern that having Plan-B and Gardasil easily available might lead to *gasp* sex? Their terror of "the brown people" coming across the border to steal their jobs and marry their daughters? Their determination to bomb the Middle East until we bring on Armageddon? Their crusade to dismantle and destroy public education, Social Security, welfare, WIC, and other "socialist" programs? Their contempt for anyone who needs welfare? Their utter disregard for the rights of minorities nationwide? Their snotty insistence that they should be free to drive their massive SUVs (complete with gun rack), and nevermind the hell it wreaks on the environment and the economy?

Exactly which "worries and concerns" are we supposed to be compromising on?

[Rhythm]

34. Hey! All those brown people are perfectly fine with Repukes

so long as they stay on their side of the border and make our stuff for us, for 25 cents a day. :sarcasm:

Good post, sweety... keep saying what needs to be said.

[JayFredMuggs]

5. REMEMBER THIS: John McSame... is NO RONALD REAGAN...nor

Is Barack Obama an incumbent Jimmy Carter fighting double digit inflation and the Iranian Hostage crisis for 16 months !

Nothing, really, is the SAME as it was in 1980. Californians and New Yorkers do not want to vote for a man who will promise us more war, and a laissez-faire approach on the economy.

There is no comparison to NY and CA in 1980

[Recursion]

8. Err.. I was comparing cross-party: MA in 1984 to, say, ND in 2008

Our "four corners" strategy isn't working. It's only worked with a strong center-right-libertarianesque third-party candidate. Obama at least offers a winnable strategy, if we work for it.

[BzaDem]

7. None of the polls indicate that there will be a landslide Obama victory.

Many put him losing to McCain. You don't win red states when you are neck and neck or losing.

There is a finite amount of money Obama will end up having. One option is to only spend it in blue and swing states, which leaves too much uncertainty. Another option is to spend an equal amount of money in each state, regardless of size or potential to win (to build the party/etc). This is suicidal.

The actual option anyone would take would be a balance between the two. The only question is where the line is. Clinton might put the line out further towards the 50% + 1 option, while Obama might put the line out further towards the equal amount of money for each state option. But there really won't be that big of a difference. Neither the 50% + 1 option or the equal amount of money for each state option (both as described above) will be used by any candidate. I'm so sick of hearing that the 50-state strategy is the only way to go. There is a tradeoff.

[JayFredMuggs]

10. So are you afraid to run Obama as the Dem Candidate?

You think Hillary will convince more independents to vote for her?

Can you point to a single state primary where the majority independents voted for Hillary?

[Recursion]

13. That's the part I don't get

Senator Clinton doesn't just have no independent support, she has negative independent support: she drives people to the polls to vote against her. And this is who half of our party wants to run against literally the only Republican left with any credibility and appeal among independents? I just don't get it. :shrug:

[BzaDem]

19. That is a myth.

The fact that Republicans hate Clinton is true. But the more a Republican hates Clinton, the more likely they were going to vote anyway. The idea that Clinton will actually turn out voters to the polls that wouldn't have turned out otherwise to vote against her is not born out in fact.

Clinton has much stronger democratic support, and in a democratic-favored election, we need to rely on democratic support, not support that is tenuous and might go the other way after the attack machine starts.

[BzaDem]

17. Well, I didn't say any of that, but I'd be happy to mention it now that you brought it up.

Obama had a stronger lead among Independents and Republicans prior to Wright. After Wright, almost all the Republican support was gone, though there is still more independent support than Hillary.

The problem is that he doesn't have solid enough democratic support. Poll after poll (even at the beginning of hte primary season, when there were few attacks) show that many more democrats will vote McCain over Obama than McCain over Hillary. A few months ago, it was 20% of democrats would vote McCain over Obama, and 10% McCain over Hillary. Again, this is at the beginning of the primary season before the attacks started, so it is doubtful that this just reflects the length of the race. In every election, about 10% of democrats vote for the Republican (as they are DINOs). But Obama has a significantly higher democratic deficit than most candidates.

The only reason Obama even approaches McCain in hypothetical matchups is because he makes up for his democratic deficit with independent support.

The problem with this strategy is that independent support is much more tenuous than core base democratic support. The Republican attack machine has barely started yet. With all their attacks on Obama's character, patriotism, Wright, etc, independent support is bound to decrease somewhat. Obama can't afford that because of his deficit with democratic supporters.

In an election where we should be landsliding but aren't, we need to run a campaign that relies on energizing the democratic base. In an election that should favor the democrats so much, if all we have to do is get the democratic base to come out in huge numbers, we will win. We shouldn't rely on independents to win (though the more, the better): we need to rely on democrats to win.

[Recursion]

22. I agree with that analysis; the problem is...

...that Clinton's deficit among everyone but Democrats dwarfs Obama's deficit among Democrats, IMO. As I said, half of my party wants to nominate the one candidate who not only doesn't attract independents and republicans but actively drives them away, and those of us trying to put the brakes on that bandwagon are somehow the "naive cult members".

Reagan had significant Republican detractors in the 1980 primaries (not the least of them his eventually running mate).

[BzaDem]

26. Polls can be flawed, but if you look at polls, the deficit is really about the same.

Why? Because Clinton and Obama frequently do equally well against McCain (almost always within the margin of error, and sometimes exactly the same).

If Clinton and Obama do equally well against McCain in polls, that must mean that the democratic deficit that Obama has is about equal to the independent deficit that Clinton has. Otherwise, one would be doing better than the other.

[Recursion]

28. My opinion is that current polls are underestimating independent turnout

I do agree with what you're saying numerically; I also think that both McCain and Obama bring out independents in unprecedented numbers.

Much like generals always fight the last war, pollsters always analyze the last election.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

23. Obama "lost" his Republican support because of Rush Limbaugh.

In both TX and OH it's pretty well known that thousands of his listeners were crossing over to vote for Clinton.

[BzaDem]

27. I'm talking about in the polls.

Wright came out after Ohio and Texas. Limbaugh might influence republicans to vote for Hillary over Barack in the primary to cause chaos, but that will not affect their responses in a McCain vs. Obama GE poll. Barack has lost a huge amount of his Republican support in polls since Wright (though this support was admittedly small in the first place).

[Recursion]

11. Even Dean doesn't give every state equal money, zlt

That's something of a strawman. The point is Dean gives every state *some* money, in fact enough to actually build a party infrastructure with, which is something McAuliffe was ardently opposed to.

[BzaDem]

29. Well I'm fine with that.

But if they give red states only some money, there is even less of a chance of turning any one. If they give red states lots of money, then we can't use it for swing states. I'm just trying to say that this whole debate between a hypothetical 50-state strategy and a hypothetical 50%+1 strategy really doesn't affect the presidential race much. I agree that it is good for building the party for the long term, but in terms of the actual presidential race, it is not like it will be decided based upon which strategy we pick, since there really isn't much of a difference between how they will be implemented in practice.

[tokenlib]

12. Your analysis is flawed...

Most people don't really know anything about Barack. The more people get to know Barack, the better he does. So the polls are flawed, because they are a snapshot in time. People think they know McCain and the Clintons--they don't know Barack yet.

I think John McCain is going to get as flustered, annoyed, irritated and pissed off as the Clintons are before this is all over. If John McCain wants to see his future--he can look at Hillary.

Nothing indicated that Hillary wasn't going to be the anointed, entitled nominees so long ago either.

[BzaDem]

24. No, No, No. This is another myth.

The more people know about Barack, the better he does in *Democratic primaries.* Not necessarily the general election. The electorate for Democratic primaries is totally different than the electorate for the general election. Switching a democrat is relatively easy compared to switching a lifelong Republican or even an independent.

This is evident in the polls. When Obama was campaigning in all the democratic states, he was blanketing the airwaves with ads. These ads weren't viewed by democrats only, they were viewed by everyone. So if your theory was correct, all his campaigning that helped people get to know him should have helped him in a GE poll.

It hasn't. Since the WI primary, his support has gone down consistently in hypothetical matchups. He gains in democratic polls and in democratic primaries, but not in GE polls with Republicans and democrats included.

[tokenlib]

32. Believe it or not, a lot of people still haven't tuned in yet....

..and that is part of my point. The masses still haven't gotten to know Barack. A lot of people tune it out until later..

[mrreowwr_kittty]

20. Polls this far out are meaningless.

Dukakis was 17 points ahead of GWB when he won the Primary.

[Cooley Hurd]

9. I remember 1980-1984...

...the nation WANTED something, SOMEONE to believe in. After years of government malfeasance, after a well-intentioned but ineffectual Carter administration, they wanted to feel proud and patriotic again. The masses were hoodwinked by Reagan into believing in the seemingly benevolent, mass-marketed father-figure. We got more of the same. Nixon... part deux.

Can it happen again? It already did. Can it happen a third time? Never underestimate the stupidity of the sheeple, UNLESS the message is honed and made palatable to the self-absorbed populace.

[VolcanoJen]

15. Ummm... you're overlooking an important historical fact.

In 1980, Reagan ran against a deeply unpopular incumbent President whom many viewed as an economic disaster and ineffectual leader. Reagan, in that sense, rode a tide of "change" on the way to that landslide. To many, Reagan was charismatic, a great speaker, and his entire message was hopeful, and about getting America to believe in itself again.

So, using the 1980 example, I'd say there are many similarities here in 2008, and that the climate is perfect for Barack Obama to repeat Reagan's electoral gains. It's far more likely that in 2008 you'll see Virginia and Iowa go blue, rather than New Jersey or Massachusetts going red.

[Recursion]

16. I must have been supremely unclear: that was my point

Reagan got "blue" states' votes because he worked for them. We can do the same, and it's discouraging that a lot of our party doesn't even seem to want to try.

[VolcanoJen]

25. Oh!! Well, ok, then, you're spot-on and brilliant!

Sorry I misunderstood something that we clearly agree on!!

:-) :toast:

[aquarius dawning]

18. In his defense, he had a lot of help from Jimmy Carter.