Obama's Horace Greeley Electability Argument: Go West

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:10:14 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

In a distant blogging past, a lot of us, people like Tom Schaller and me, argued that in the short term, the South was not favorable terrain for expanding the electoral map for Democrats. That the favorable terrain lay in Lincoln's 1860 map - the North and the West.

I believe in a long term 50 state strategy but it is foolish to think it can make sense in this Presidential election. We are basically stuck with the Gore and Kerry maps and need to look how we hold those states and where we can add the necessary electoral votes to win the Presidency. I have outlined Obama's problems with that map and the risk we run in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. But Obama can change the map in the West. In Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and Montana. And this data from Oregon gives us some indication - Obama leads McCain by 14:

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone poll in Oregon shows Barack Obama leading John McCain 52% to 38%. That’s a significant improvement for Obama compared to a month ago when he led the presumptive Republican nominee by six percentage points. In three consecutive Oregon polls, McCain has never received more than 40% support when matched against Obama. In the current poll, McCain attracts just 68% support from Republican voters in the state.

Clinton beats McCain in Oregon too, by 6. But Obama is able to do better in the West than Clinton. Indeed, better than any recent Democratic Presidential candidate. For Obama to win the Presidency, Horace Greeley will be his North Star - go West, young Democrat.

By Big Tent Democrat

< WV Poll: Clinton By 38 | Obama Camp Not Interested In Unity >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Obama's Horace Greeley Electability Argument: Go West | 137 comments (137 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

It's fine to go west (5.00 / 4) (#2)
by andgarden on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:13:44 AM EST

so long as you can still sell your product in enough places back east.

If Obama is the nominee, I think this electoral map might look a lot like 1976--in reverse.

Oregon and Washington (5.00 / 3) (#5)
by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:17:14 AM EST

is the West?

I'm confused.

I think McCain will win handily in CO and AZ, and I believe we'll once again lose NV, UTAH, AND NM.

Actually, it has to be said that (5.00 / 2) (#75)
by Cream City on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:08:56 PM EST

when Horace Greeley said "go west," he meant . . . western Pennsylvania or Kentucky. That was the west at the time.

Apologies to BTD, but the historian in me prizes accuracy and context. So I always react when seeing quotes such as Greeley's taken out of context.

And, of course, western Pennsylvania and Kentucky are Clinton country. So let it also be said that Greeley, a savvy politician, would have seen the huge holes in this or any electability argument for Obama.


: 1868 (none / 0) (#97)
by Ben Masel on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:15:44 PM EST

so the frontier had moved well past Kentucky.

Yup, McCain's home turf (none / 0) (#7)
by andgarden on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:17:48 AM EST

We're going to have a problem.


Arizona is not in play (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:20:13 AM EST

I do not think anyone thinks it is.

Of course there are the idiots who want a Napolitano, or even better, a Sebelius on the ticket.

But those are the idiots.


I think McCain walks away (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by andgarden on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:22:39 AM EST

with CO and NM. As Republicans go, he's a match for those states.

The under-40s would pretty much have to vote in lock-step for Obama to win there.


What about the other states (none / 0) (#15)
by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:21:27 AM EST

mentioned. I never have thought of Oregon and Washington as being key.


Iowa, Colorado, NM, Nevada (none / 0) (#21)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:24:17 AM EST

represent a 25 electoral vote flip.

If Obama can hold the Kerry states and flip those, he win 285 electoral votes and the PResidency.


Pennsylvania remains a must win (5.00 / 2) (#25)
by andgarden on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:25:39 AM EST

It's going to cost a fortune, and still might not be possible.

PA alone is reason enough to put Hillary on the ticket.


: I've lived in Western PA for 25 years (5.00 / 1) (#101)
by kempis on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:42:52 PM EST

And from what I've seen, Pennsylvania is very likely to be McCain country.
Kerry won PA by 2 points against Bush in 04. I think McCain will do much better against Obama in PA. Therefore, I think PA goes to McCain. Obama's only hope is Ed Rendell, who I bet Obama would love to have on the ticket. And Rendell is a Clinton loyalist, but he's also a die-hard partisan Democrat.

: Pennsylvania (none / 0) (#104)
by christinep on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:57:30 PM EST

I agree that Pennsylvania, the Keystone State, is the key ... along with Ohio, Ohio, and Ohio.

Don't count on him holding New Hampshire. (5.00 / 2) (#29)
by tigercourse on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:27:06 AM EST

McCain is ahead in the last 3 polls, and by wider margins each time. 10 points going by Ras.


: NH Definitely At Risk (none / 0) (#64)
by MO Blue on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:52:15 AM EST

Also WI McCain 47% Obama 43%
PA Obama 45% McCain 41%

"if Obama can hold" (5.00 / 3) (#31)
by Stellaaa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:27:46 AM EST

is the big clause.


Indeed it is (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:29:50 AM EST

I think I have been shy about my concern on that point.


: Shines is your virtue. (none / 0) (#39)
by Stellaaa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:32:04 AM EST

OK (5.00 / 2) (#34)
by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:29:37 AM EST

but how does he flip them? McCain has deep roots in the states I mentioned.

And he's very solid in the Immigration Reform area. He makes HIS party mad, of course, but I trust he can handle them. He knows what's what with our issues out here.


: i think what they are saying (none / 0) (#41)
by Stellaaa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:32:44 AM EST

is organizing, voter registration etc. and playing his transcendance up.

That's a big IF (5.00 / 1) (#61)
by ChuckieTomato on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:46:52 AM EST

why would you say obama has any (1.00 / 0) (#136)
by kangeroo on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:04:45 AM EST

advantage over hillary in IA, NM, and NV? any swing states obama can deliver, so can hillary. regardless of head-to-head polling (useless this far out), i'd say it's hillary who has the advantage in NV and NM, both of them have a shot at IA (which is midwest, as paul pointed out), and obama has the advantage in CO.

but he certainly has no chance in hell of taking AK, AZ, ID, MT, UT, or WY, which are GOP strongholds. and i don't see any added value that obama brings to western states like WA, OR, and CA, which will all easily go blue under hillary.

but i can't say the same in reverse; there are a lot of states hillary could deliver that obama couldn't. i know it's cliche, but you really can't win without the south. the GOP has ridiculously strong strangleholds on a lot of the west and midwest, and the vast majority of swing states are in the south.

no matter how people slice and dice it, there's no getting around it: obama's chances are significantly worse than hillary's. what's more, i have a feeling the superdels and the DNC know this. my only question is why they don't care.


welcome, seymour! glad to see ya here. (none / 0) (#138)
by kangeroo on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:53:13 PM EST

i loved your diaries when i used to frequent mydd. who's fanboy singer?

speaking of mydd, i just dropped by yesterday and was dismayed to find a massive, overwhelming swarm of OFB had overrun the place and taken it hostage. and, unsurprisingly, they were spiteful and condescending as hell. they were insulting jerome. jerome. these people scare me.


: censorship seems (none / 0) (#140)
by kangeroo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:32:13 AM EST

rampant in the blogosphere these days. i've been kicked out of pro-obama sites too, as have many other people this season--merely for expressing dissent. (i'm surprised i wasn't banned from dailykos.) at first all this suppression of dissent was just annoying... now it seems creepy and kinda scary.

Napolitano (none / 0) (#123)
by befuddled on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:19:37 PM EST

was such an improvement over the last 3 governors, she hasn't seemed bad at all; in fact considering our legislature, she's remarkably sane. However, it was very disappointed after our primary (which I couldn't vote in as an independent) when she came out for Obama. I did send all the SDs we had chosen by Apr. 18 an argument on why they should support Clinton, and since then I think my argument is reinforcing itself. We have such a large Hispanic population, many new residents, and a large number of older women, I think it might even be possible to overcome McCain, though he is well-loved. If the candidate was firm and focused.


Need to add this thread's (none / 0) (#43)
by riddlerandy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:34:07 AM EST

favorite Dem to the ticket:

Bill Richardson


Dealbreaker for me (5.00 / 2) (#53)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:43:29 AM EST

A huge mistake.

He is a definite no.

that divides the Party utterly.


: Yup. (5.00 / 1) (#60)
by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:46:35 AM EST

But isn't the party already divided, utterly? Didn't Brazile already refer to it?

: So, if Obama's VP is (none / 0) (#98)
by oculus on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:05:57 PM EST

Richardson, you will do what? Vote for McCain? Doubt it.

The problem is that even though I doubt (5.00 / 4) (#63)
by tigercourse on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:50:47 AM EST

Richardson is an idiot, he certainly plays one on tv. "We need to drain water from the Great Lakes to give to the South West". Yeah, stupid things like that aren't going to fly in the election.


Richardson (5.00 / 1) (#65)
by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:52:17 AM EST

would seal the deal for McCain. :)


: It's hard to imagine the (5.00 / 2) (#70)
by brodie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:00:15 PM EST

gaffe-prone, goateed, Clinton-backstabber Bill Richardson on the ticket when presumably Obama will be asking Hillary and Bill to go out and enthusiastically stump for him. Another stab in the back to the Clintons and a serious obstacle preventing full healing between the O-C wings of the party.
No Judases on the ticket, please.

The interior West (none / 0) (#103)
by christinep on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:52:59 PM EST

While I have long agree that there were Dem gains to be made in the West, the strategy to get there isn't just a declaration that because you do well in early Dem caucuses there, you have a lock on it. Far from it. First, look at the type of Dems that win in the mountain West. They are populists (somewhat), have some land & environmental credentials, have a tolerance for the Western approach to the Second Amendment (meaning: somewhat libertarian), and do not have a background that can be characterized as too liberal in an East-of-the-Mississippi sort of way. Based on accumulating info since the caucuses, Obama may encounter difficulty here and not just because of the guns issue. I believe that the Chicago image will be grown by our opponents and the nuclear industry connection lurking there might not be too appealing to environmentalists. Seond, the concept of Democratic expansion in the West--for which I earlier applauded Dean--will meet a major challenge in the GE in view of the McCain candidacy. That muddies the hopes in Nevada and, probably, in my home state of Colorado. Remember that, next to Hillary Clinton, McCain does seem to have rapport with the Latino demographic. In my opinion, viewing the West as a place to grow is one thing, but wishing it would be a replacement for the traditional Eastern and Midwestern electoral-rich (and within reach)states is quite another wistful gambit.


Not only that, they have voted Democratic... (none / 0) (#116)
by alexei on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:44:55 PM EST

even for Dukakis. They are not really swing states. No in a tidal wave election, sure, the Repub can take them. But to say that Oregon or Washington are indicative of "enlarging the map" is wrong.


Is a loss in CO... (none / 0) (#119)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:10:41 PM EST

...just a gut feeling or do you have reasons why?

McSame didn't win the R primary here. There is no outpouring of support for him that I've noticed. His pro-immigration stance is going to cost him votes within his own party here.

It is not exactly a good thing to be a Republican in this state at the moment. Their Senate candidate is going to be handily defeated. They are running candidates even the Party can't stand (see Doug Bruce). There are going to be some very nasty run-offs between the R candidates--even in places like Colorado Springs.

Colorado remains one the youngest, most educated states in the Union. R's may hold an advantage in registration numbers for the moment (soon to overtaken by Independents), but the D's hold both sides of the legislature as well as the Governor's office.

John Sidney McSame, III will not win Colorado.


California... (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by Stellaaa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:18:24 AM EST

I don't buy the California in the bag. It's a tricky state. He will struggle or possibly lose.

: If he can't win the Latino vote he will lose (5.00 / 1) (#69)
by ChuckieTomato on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:59:52 AM EST

: Asian vote also in CA (none / 0) (#107)
by DaleA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:16:30 PM EST

Asians are about 12% of the population. Latinos over 35%. Add in Native Americans, Gays and Lesbians and Pacific Islanders there is a solid majority of the population that does not like Obama. CA is at risk of going R if he is the nominee.

: Obama will win CA (none / 0) (#126)
by Get 27 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:32:45 PM EST

I see Obama sings and bumper stickers everywhere. But then again I'm in liberal San Francisco, Gasp!

And Arnold won't help McCain? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by MarkL on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:19:11 AM EST

I assume that the Governator will campaign heavily for McCain in the West, and probably to great effect.

Arnold gave a tepid (none / 0) (#14)
by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:20:31 AM EST

endorsement.

Remember, Arnie is a Democrat with a Republican label.

He had no choice. :)


Arnold is running for Senate (none / 0) (#18)
by Stellaaa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:22:54 AM EST

as a Republican, he wants Boxers seat and Boxer looks like she is in trouble. So, that is why I say, California is not true blue. It's just that the people who write are in blue enclaves.


I really don't think Arnie wants to be a Senator. (none / 0) (#23)
by tigercourse on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:25:16 AM EST

That really doesn't seem like fun. As I recall, his agents are out looking for possible future movie roles.


Boxer is gearing up (none / 0) (#28)
by Stellaaa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:26:54 AM EST

that is the talk.


I really hope not, because he could certainly (none / 0) (#33)
by tigercourse on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:29:20 AM EST

beat her. She has mediocre approval ratings.


I'v gotten letters (none / 0) (#37)
by Stellaaa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:30:39 AM EST

etc. to gear up for the election in 2 years ( I think). I think she is a bit scared.


: She is scared (5.00 / 1) (#57)
by hlr on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:44:17 AM EST

She keeps sending me emails about her re-election ... and I live in MD.

Really? (none / 0) (#38)
by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:31:14 AM EST

I like Boxer. I'm not too keen about Pelosi, but I can't vote her out. drat

Arnie versus Boxer.....Hmmmmmmm*......Why wouldn't he go after Feinstein instead? Same more conservative group.

OK......sorry......I'm off-topic here.


: I like Boxer too (none / 0) (#127)
by Get 27 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:36:36 PM EST

She's not scared of Arnold.

I don't see that he has much of a chance in (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by tigercourse on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:23:35 AM EST

Montana. It went 20 points for Bush, and both semi-recent polls have him behind. The two most recent polls also have him behind in Nevada and New Mexico. These might be outliers as most older polls have him leading there. Iowa does seem pretty likely to go his way.

Why Iowa? (none / 0) (#44)
by Addison on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:34:19 AM EST

I mean, I know the polling. I know the history of the caucuses there. But it's interesting how he was able to accomplish such a victory in Iowa, with such a long echo of goodwill from Iowans (same could be said of WI, I guess) that has largely transcended Wright, etc., indicating that it's not just because Iowans hadn't seen the "vetted" candidate, or were naive, or whatever. He ought to look over what he did in Iowa again.


Will Illinoisians be able to vote (5.00 / 2) (#46)
by MarkL on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:36:27 AM EST

in Iowa for Obama in November?!


: Are Illinoisans voting in the current polls... (none / 0) (#56)
by Addison on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:44:00 AM EST

...showing Obama ahead of McCain and Clinton behind? Have they infiltrated the Iowan phone lines, too? Your "argument" isn't persuasive.

Dukakis (none / 0) (#49)
by Ga6thDem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:39:12 AM EST

carried IA. Clinton carried IA twice. It only started going red in 2000 and 2004.


Regardless, Clinton is behind McCain now... (none / 0) (#50)
by Addison on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:41:10 AM EST

...Obama isn't.


Well (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by Ga6thDem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:43:29 AM EST

I'll trade FL and OH for IA anyday of the week.


Is that what my comment was about? (none / 0) (#59)
by Addison on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:45:49 AM EST

No.

Sometimes y'all are pretty reflexive in your commenting habits. I'm not talking about trading Iowa for those other states, I'm wondering about why it is that Obama did so well in Iowa and continues to do so well there. Don't just assume that I'm saying whatever makes it easiest for you to respond to with some canned line about FL, OH, or MI.


Also... (none / 0) (#71)
by Addison on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:00:40 PM EST

...this discussion is all in the context of Obama doing well in the West, in spite of the West (the parts we're talking about anyway) having very few black voters. Iowa was the seminal example of that. I think that, perhaps, whatever happened -- and is happening -- in Iowa is explanatory in some way of why Obama overperforms in the West.

FL is completely irrelevant to that discussion. Obama outperforms Clinton vs. McCain in Michigan, but it's so close -- and there are so many black voters there -- that I don't think good conclusions can be drawn from it. Ohio alone is relevant to this particular discussion, perhaps, as an example of Obama failing to do whatever it was he did in Iowa.


The Southwest (none / 0) (#74)
by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:07:08 PM EST

isn't Ohio.

That much I know.

It's going to be all about economy and immigration here.

And Obama's own strategy of attacking Hillary on NAFTA will backfire in the Southwest.

This is an area that has grown due to NAFTA. They can't survive without it.


: This shows why it's not accurate (none / 0) (#81)
by shoephone on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:20:39 PM EST

to tag all states in the western portion as "The West". Arizona and NM hinge on different issues (and even some demographics) than say, Oregon. And what about Texas? Other than the immigration issue, how is it like California? My point about Oregon and Washington is that we do not consider ourselves part of "The West" anyway. We are the "Pacific Northwest", which is a whole other animal. Our issues and demos are different from Colorado AND California.
Lastly, if Obama thinks he has a shot at Idaho, he is the truly the finest comedian of the election season.

FL (none / 0) (#87)
by Ga6thDem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:32:36 PM EST

does matter. It's an important swing state and the fact that Obama polls slightly better in some red states, at least right now, doesn't get him nearly close enough to carry them in a general election.

Actually I think Obama does better in MI because of the black vote though it might not be enough if he runs off enough white voters. Some of the states like MI are a wash IMO.


IA has much higher concentration (none / 0) (#135)
by Eleanor A on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:51:27 PM EST

of college students per capita than Ohio. That alone may be your answer.

By the way, Iowa is not "the West." Unless you want to start calling Kansas and Nebraska that, as well.


I think (none / 0) (#83)
by Ga6thDem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:27:45 PM EST

that Obama does better in IA because he spent a year campaigning there. Also he's big into agricultural subsidies isn't he?


Last Poll Clinton Leads McCain In IA (none / 0) (#95)
by MO Blue on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:49:57 PM EST

43% to 42% compared to Obama 49% to 41%.


You guess wrong about Wisconsin (none / 0) (#77)
by Cream City on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:13:45 PM EST

. . . which was 'way pre-Wright, God, guns, bittergate, etc.

Go look at the polls for Wisconsin today. And go look at how Wisconsin voted out Justice Louis Butler, the first AA on the state Supreme Court. That's what happens in Wisconsin when Republicans cross back to voting Republican.

Obama would not win Wisconsin again. Whether any Dem will win the closest state in 2004 and one of the closest in 2000 is a big question, after both Gore and Kerry worked very hard here.

But we know for sure which candidate would not keep Wisconsin in the blue column. Ask ex-Justice Butler.


Last Poll Obama Does Lead McCain In IA (none / 0) (#51)
by MO Blue on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:43:09 AM EST

Obama 49% McCain 41%

CO Obama 46% McCain 43%
NM McCain 46% Obama 45%
NV McCain 48% Obama 43%
MT McCain 48% Obama 43%


Exactly... (none / 0) (#62)
by Addison on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:47:05 AM EST

...maybe I'm wrong on this but it seems to be a long-term exception to the "demographics is destiny" argument (which is generally sound, as shown by poblano) in which case Obama should really reexamine why that is.


: In BTD Scenario Obama Is Only (5.00 / 1) (#73)
by MO Blue on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:03:12 PM EST

ahead in IO and CO which have 16 EVs. He is also behind in NH and WI (Kerry's map) which have 14 EVs. All things being equal, he would only pick up 2 EVs. That is not enough to defeat McCain.

Oregon, Washington, California, Montana (none / 0) (#82)
by 1jane on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:26:07 PM EST

The left coast will all go to Obama in the GE. The difference in the organization between the Obama and Clinton campaign is what caused Oregon to overwhelmingly support Obama.

March 2007, the Oregon South for Obama, all local Obama activists, was launched and includes 220 members. Larger groups formed in metro counties surrounding Portland, Portland itself and the University areas which run from Portland, Corvallis, Eugene and Ashland, the I5 corridor.

The Clinton campaign has relied on "out-of-state" field reps who open the offices. The press/media lock down by the Clinton campaign has frustrated reporters and generated ill will.

Lastly, walk into the Clinton campaign office in my town and there is no one under 65 years of age with the exception of the out of state field reps.

Walk in the Obama campaign office in my town and a greeter meets you. People of all ages and races are hard at work. Obama local activists are canvassing door to door every single night from 5PM to 8PM while another group phone banks during the same hours. On Saturday and Sundays the Obama campaign runs two canvassing shifts. In addition, the Obama campaign has events and speakers. Oregonians have all recieved their mail in ballots and have until May 20 to return those ballots. The Clinton campaign relies strickly on phone banking. Now both the Clinton and Obama campaigns are tracking who has not returned their ballots by checking with the election office data base which shows the person's name and if their ballot has been returned. It's very cool because if we vote early we don't get annoying calls asking us if we've returned our ballot.

Hillary came to my county on Thursday. 525 people showed up to see her.

Montana will go with Obama. The Democratic Governor is fabulous and the universities in Helena and Bozeman will go for him. The rich and famous who've moved into Montana will go his way too.

In S. Dakota huge rallies for Obama have happened all over the state.

The Pacific NW rocks!


Oregon would likely go to Hillary too (5.00 / 1) (#86)
by Democratic Cat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:31:21 PM EST

Montana, well, I think that's a pipe dream, but I'm willing to spot you its three EVs. California, with 55 EVs, is the prize and it's not as blue as people think. Obama will have problems there. He may indeed win it, but IMO he'll have to spend a lot of time and money there that Clinton would not have to spend.


I grew up in southern CA (5.00 / 1) (#89)
by shoephone on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:37:39 PM EST

and I can tell you, there are lots of Republicans there. Always have been. Think about the fact that CA has only had one Democratic governor in the last 25 years, and he got recalled.

CA is not a slam-dunk for Obama.


Huge military and military (5.00 / 1) (#99)
by oculus on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:14:26 PM EST

related and military retiree population, which I think will at least consider McCain.


Yup, (none / 0) (#94)
by Democratic Cat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:45:36 PM EST

Not to mention the Central Valley and the far North. It's a politically diverse state.


: East Bay/Contra Costa County (none / 0) (#100)
by nycstray on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:37:42 PM EST

is another place to watch.

South Dakota for Obama in Nov? (5.00 / 1) (#90)
by shoephone on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:38:49 PM EST

Laughable.


: By the way (none / 0) (#91)
by shoephone on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:40:20 PM EST

neither Montana or South Dakota are the Pacific Northwest... they are "The West".

Montana (5.00 / 1) (#92)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:43:34 PM EST

First, Montana isn't a member of the Pacific Northwest, instead, it's Mountain West.

Yes, Montana has a couple of college towns, but recruits from places like Idaho and Wyoming, think farming and ranching, so don't expect it to have the same college attitudes.

Montana loves it some guns, and is a quite liberatarian state.

The AA population is less than 1%

Even with the college towns and infiltration from California, Bush won 59% to 39% in 2004. Don't expect a big change from that.


SoDak (none / 0) (#108)
by DFLer on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:19:13 PM EST

South Dakota and Huge Rallies is an oxymoron!

(2006 USCB est: 781,919)


: SoDaK 2 (none / 0) (#109)
by DFLer on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:21:07 PM EST

spread over an area of 77121 square miles, making it the 17th largest of the 50 states.

Montana's fabulous (none / 0) (#121)
by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:51:58 PM EST

governor endorsed Hillary. Not that it means he can swing the state for her.


Ok (5.00 / 4) (#58)
by chrisvee on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:44:55 AM EST

So our strategy is going to be to go west in a year when we're running against a war hero from the southwest who appeals to older voters, Hispanics, and independents while our candidate may have difficulty securing Dem-swinging states.

I'm feeling better all the time.

Who is VP in this scenario? Richardson?

I don't see Oregon or Wash. as indicators (5.00 / 1) (#66)
by shoephone on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:52:46 AM EST

Washington is strongly blue. Kerry won here handily. And he won Oregon by 51%, so holding both of them is important. But Oregon has only 7 electoral votes. If it were me, I'd rather have Florida in my column than Oregon (25 electoral votes vs. 7.) NM? 5. Penn 23. Montana? 3 votes. Ohio 21. And I continue to believe Florida would be very much in play for Clinton.

I realize this is all about strategy and that squeaking by with 5 votes somewhere in the west still wins the presidency but since the Schaller argument has become so popular, eeking out those five votes becomes the imperative, do-or die. And to my mind, that's a pretty desperate map for Obama, especially if the midwest is considered as difficult for him as the south.

I asked the other day if CO can be counted as a serious possible win for Obama and the responses I got were basically "no". Has something changed in CO I'm not aware of?

Obama's Map of Desperation.

: Ditto (none / 0) (#68)
by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:56:53 AM EST

What I see is that the Democrats are relying upon the "hold-your-nose" idea.
They can't lose, in other words.
This is their year.
Even if Obama gets elected by that method, I could almost guarantee he'll lose Congress, then.
This is a classic year for voters to split it.
I don't dislike Obama, personally. I am mad at the Democratic Party leaders.
I can see him getting the presidency, and then I can see the momentum shift to block him with a Republican-dominated congress.
Back to the same old story. blech
And 4 years of nothing.

i agree the maps will be different for each (1.00 / 3) (#1)
by AgreeToDisagree on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:11:40 AM EST

but really, i think we need to focus on Obama's map given he's our nominee.

He isn't (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by americanincanada on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:13:58 AM EST

our nominee quite yet. I really wish people could see that.


: Given that he is (none / 0) (#22)
by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:24:3