( – promoted by DavidNYC)
Last week, David took a look at the “Swing States” for 2008, adding:
Now, as you know, I’m a big believer in the fifty-state strategy, but as you also know, these things take time. As much as I’d like to believe we’ll see an expanded playing field in the next presidential race, I think we all realize that Howard Dean’s plan is the work of many years.
I agree, and it’s important to put our resources where they have the best chance of affecting the outcome, but at the same time, we don’t know how the picture will look, who our nominee will be, who their nominee will be, etc. Speculation is fun, and I’m no stranger to it. But the question that came to me, a resident of a deep-red state, when looking at the playing field, and realizing that the playing field David put out there is probably broader than the playing field we’ll see in 2008, was: What can we do to change it? How can the netroots do what we do best – making races competitive – in 2008? Can we do it in a Presidential race?
Of the 31 states George W. Bush won in 2004, he won 9 of them by less than 10%. Those states total 97 electoral votes. Those are states that we can, conceivably, win in 2008. If we flip 18 or more electoral votes from 2004, we have a majority. But playing offense is our strength, and being ambitious is a luxury we have that the campaign does not.
Of course, there’s only so much we can do on our own. But we can lay the groundwork, build up local successes, do whatever we can do to help elect Democrats in 2008. Maybe, in the process, we can make some of these states competitive on a Presidential level, and force the Republicans to play defense.
So, I’m just kicking some thoughts around here: If you live in a state that went for Bush in 2004, what races, if any, can we focus on? Are there potential Democratic candidates you think could bring the state you live in into play? Are there potential Republican candidates that could? Also, what are the prominent blogs in your state or district?
I think we need to make sure that 2006 was only the beginning. We have an opportunity to elect Democrats all across the country in 2008, we should take advantage.
States Won By Bush in ’04 (swing states in italics, electoral votes and approval rating in parentheses):
Alabama (9) 62.5% (45%)
Alaska (3) 61% (43%)
Arizona (10) 54.8% (41%)
Arkansas (6) 54.3% (38%)
Colorado (9) 51.7% (41%)
Florida (27) 52.1% (42%)
Georgia (15) 58% (45%)
Idaho (4) 68.4% (55%)
Indiana (11) 60% (40%)
Iowa (7) 49.9%(38%)
Kansas (6) 62% (45%)
Kentucky (8) 59.6% (40%)
Louisiana (9) 56.7% (47%)
Mississippi (6) 59% (45%)
Missouri (11) 53.3% (34%)
Montana (3) 59.1% (45%)
Nebraska (5)* 65.9% (46%) – There’s a quirk in Nebraska’s election law that awards electoral votes by Congressional District. NE-02 went 61-38% for Bush in 2004. In 2006, Republican Lee Terry won the district 55-45%, after a 61-36% victory in ’04. Maine is the only other state with this sort of law. The rest of the states are “winner take all.”
Nevada (5) 50.5% (37%)
New Mexico (5) 49.8% (34%)
North Carolina (15) 56% (43%)
North Dakota (3) 62.9% (47%)
Ohio (20) 50.8% (34%)
Oklahoma (7) 65.6% (43%)
South Carolina (8) 57.9% (41%)
South Dakota (3) 59.9% (42%)
Tennessee (11) 56.8% (41%)
Texas (34) 61.1% (41%)
Utah (5) 71.5% (55%)
Virginia (13) 53.7% (44%)
West Virginia (5) 56.1% (40%)
Wyoming (3) 68.9% (49%)
My goal here is simply to get some input from everyone: what can we do in the “red” states? Some of these states, particularly the ones Bush won by less than 10%, are states we can and should win on a Presidential level. Some of these states, clearly, would take an absolute disaster by the Republicans to win. So my question is obviously not limited to the Presidential race, although it’s a big part of the equation. We had a few states in 2006 that weren’t able to capitalize on the wave. We had a few states (like Nebraska, Wyoming, Idaho) that made significant progress but still couldn’t have much tangible success. What should be our strategy? Is it too soon to start talking about expanding the playing field?
We also made significant progress in Montana, but still that would be a stretch for a presidential contest.
As a voter in Indiana, I can assure you that Indiana should NOT be included in any red state project. Indiana has voted Dem for president only twice in history. Once for FDR and last in 1964 for LBJ. We really have not been close in recent history. We have an incumbent GOP governor who could be in danger of not being reelected but we have no viable opponent for him at his time. I am hoping one emerges soon.
if the dem candidate doesn’t target it…then he/she is really stupid
I’m writing from a blue state. But it seems that having good Dem candidates at all levels is key to expanding Democratic chances in any state. I don’t know how candidate recruitment is done. Is there a model for how to do it? How do the Republicans recruit candidates? There must be a technique. Right now is a good time to be putting effort into pulling in some new talent for ’08. GOTV is needed for all races, so even getting a good state rep candidate will help.
Another idea–ballot initiatives. Didn’t the Republicans use this successfully in some states to get out certain voters? A popular ballot initiative could perhaps energize some election workers (e.g. an environmental initiative would pull out some environmental activists to work on the election)
Our chances of success are dependent on the other candidates on the Democratic ticket aside from the presidential race. Therefore we need strong Senate candidates in NC, VA, NH,MN. We also have to cherry pick strong, progeressive and charismatic candidates for the house seats across the Plains and Mountain states plus the border state such as NC and VA and in “fill-in” spots such as upstate NY and central PA. We can also expect to kiss the GOV and SEN seats in LA goodbye but welcome the GOV seats in IN and KY with open arms.
Dukakis lost MT by less than 6 points? Hard to believe, but true.
Clinton won it in ’92 and ’96, and it has the highest Bush disapproval rating of any ’04 red state according to SurveyUSA. Plus, the R Gov, Kit Bond, is not a popular man, and might pull the state blue in the presidential if he received a strong enough challenge for his seat. IN is a very solid conservative state; MO’s been getting more conservative recently, but is still effectively split down the middle, so these things matter a lot more.
Wow, things hae changed in the last 18 years
we choose & who the Repubs choose.
I think that North Carolina, West Virginia and Arizona could switch with the right Candidate and under the best of circumstances. All the Swing States listed are in play:
Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Virginia, New Hampshire (not listed), Florida, Ohio, Missouri, Iowa & Arkansas, though again dependent upon who we choose for Prez & to a lesser extent VP (better chance for movement if its a popular Governor vs. Senator).
I think the 50 State Strategy worked great for the House & Senate contests last year and if the plan is to continue that focus for House & Senate races in 2008 there should be some positive spill over effect, otherwise I wouldn’t recommend we pour dollars into any of the Red States. We can make much more headway in the Swing States and would only need to pick up a couple of those.
Only Ohio. We lost Montana when we tried to increase grazing fees.
of the impact Perot had on the race and the states that were likely thrown Clinton’s way because of him:
http://www.fairvote….
As it suggests, even if every single state that is mentioned went Bush’s way, he still would have lost.
Keep disseminating Info on campaigns/candidates. Netroots/ActBlue did a greatjob of targeting competive races and funding those. If I have the information, I will contribute both in print & in $$$. Target & cover.
That is a very good question. It seems that the DNC and State Parties and the individual Candidates’ campaign machinery pretty much control the funding of the Pres. Candidates and I’m not quite sure how we can leverage our dollars into specific States without funneling it to those sources. Is setting up a State page for those States we think should be targeted for funding a realistic/mechanical possibility?
There are a whole host of reasons that makes Indiana as conservative as it is. Part of it is the migration patterns of people who settled this state, in that it is more Southern and Appalachian than the rest of the Midwest.
Another part of it is that until VERY recently, Indianapolis was a Republican city. Take Chicago out of Illinois or Detroit out of Michigan, and those states really start to change color. Now, Indianapolis proper has tilted more and more blue, but the surrouding suburbs are as red as you’ll find anywhere in the country.
This is a conservative state more than a Republican one. I don’t think it is party weakness — we’ve elected Democrats to the full range of offices for a long time. But too many Hoosiers will not vote for what they percieve are national candidates too far to the left. Unless Evan Bayh is on the ticket (something I AM NOT advocating!), there is no chance we even come within ten points of the GOP candidate here.
If Barak Obama is on the ticket it would not be unreasonable to expect that black voter turnout would be higher than usual. This could benifit the party in such traditional “red states” as pretty much the entire deep south.