A Win For The Democrats Is So Easy

[ThomWV]

I don't know why there isn't a much mention of the simply step it will take for the Democrats to beat Bush. All we have to do is get out and vote for the Democratic candidate. We don't have to win over any Republicans or Greens either. Why does everyone forget that there are more of us than there are of them? Its just getting the people of our own party to get out there and vote and while they are at it to vote for the guy from their own party. Do that and we win. That simple.

Thom

[Doctor Pedantic]

1. No, it's not that simple

Remember the electoral college....Although nationally there are (now slightly) more Democrats than Republicans, what matters is the breakdown by state, and that's much more complicated.

[ShaneGR]

3. Well, here's a point

If you go to the simplest thing about the electoral college you have a very simple answer. If the Democrats carry Ohio the Democratic nominee will become President. Period.

There are more registered Dems in Ohio than Republicans. But our turnout has been low the last two cycles. Turnout high=win.

So what he's saying has credence.

[DieboldMustDie]

9. But the CEO of Diebold...

has all but promised Ohio to *

:evilfrown:

[ShaneGR]

15. Diebold machines will not be used in Ohio

Prediction.

The turnout here is going to be massive. You watch.

[xJlM]

20. I hope you're right

I came back to Ohio in 2000, because I was living in a repug state (Indiana) and I wanted a chance to help the guy who actually won, Al Gore. But of course, winning wasn't enough in 2000...

[waggawagga]

11. I Think The Electoral College Favors the Democrats in 2004

If you look at the map of states which Gore won in 2000 there aren't many which stand much chance of turning Republican this year. If the Democrats nominate a bad candidate I think they'll still win states like CA, NY, IL, NJ, MA...this is a long list. States which the Democrats should win without too much difficulty include PA, WA, OR, and MI. The states Gore won which are really up for grabs, in my opinion, are MN, IA, WI, and NM.

Now look at the Bush column. He has to win states like OH, NH, FL, WV, and MO. If the Democrats can just hold onto what they got in 2000 and pick off one more state (which could be NH or WV) they win. If I were the Dems I'd write off the solid south and much of the midwest and go straight for the rustbelt (thinking of one state in particular, Ohio, because if they can win that the electoral math gets very good).

I think the above is one reason why the base probably will matter more in 2004 than during previous elections. If the number of true battleground states is small who wins probably will hinge on which party gets their base to the polls in the greatest numbers.

It's quite possible that the Democrats will, um, pull a Bush and win in the electoral college while losing the popular vote (which would be divine justice, I think, heh heh).

[wuushew]

13. I hope you are aware that

If the Gore states were exactly the same the EC votes for any given Democratic canidate would be 260 as opposed to 266 in 2000. 2000 is a good base, so where are you going to pick up 11 electoral votes?

WV=5 NH=4 LA=9 CO=9

Obviously if you could guarantee FL or OH we would have nothing to worry about.

[waggawagga]

16. Yikes

I forgot about that. Point noted.

[wuushew]

19. I forgot to add

look at those likely swing states I mentioned

WV,NH,LA,CO

3 out of 13 combinations results in 269 Electoral votes(a tie) which results in Bush being elected pResident by the House of Representives.

[waggawagga]

22. Good point

Yeah, I thought about that, would it be the old House which decided the election? Of the states you mentioned I don't think the Democrats have a good shot at CO or LA. Their best chance probably is to win Florida. Tough states which might be doable are Ohio and Nevada (but that would be pulling a rabbit out of a hat). It's too bad the Dems can't run Graham for president of Florida and someone else for the rest of the country.

[waggawagga]

21. Yeah, Definately Tougher

The Dems have their work cut out for them. The numbers are so much tougher with the 2004 electoral college map the Dems would do well to consider making Senator Graham VP just for the advantage they'd get in Florida. They have to pull in one of the battleground states which Gore lost and it's not obvious how they're going to do it. Wow, bummer. Oh well, thanks for the info, better to deal in reality.

[amberdisc]

2. Would be ....

Wish it would be.
But politics maybe ain't that simple.
http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/">link

:-(

[w4rma]

4. I wish it were that easy.

Bush* is expected to have more than 200 million dollars to smear our Democratic candidate with. And if our Democratic candidate accepts federal matching funds he'll only have 45 million dollars.

Also, other Republicans usually out fundraise Democrats, also. This is all because the folks who fund Republicans expect to get money redirected their way as a kickback for spending less money on their election.

[HereSince1628]

5. well, er, it could be sort of that simple...

If the democratic candidate gets more votes in each state. But everyone doubts if that can really happen in every state.

But, if democratic leaning citizens are influenced by their friends and motivated by the good deeds of others, maybe the national democratic party should be throwing good deed parties nationally.

A year of swing voters seeing obvious democrats volunteering everywhere would certainly create a national ambience.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. You Forgot That Approxiamtely Thirty Five Percent Of The Electorate

don't belong to either party...

[amberdisc]

8. You people have got to ..

This is the Big factor.
You people have got to inform and activate one third or at least a good portion of those to save your country! That's the only way! And you ain't umpteen zilliion dollars so you do it the good old fashion way of talking and walking for what you believe in.
Good luck 'cos we need you!

____________________
Old European Chocolat Maker

[Penible]

7. more complex

1) Pubs seem to have over-all higher turnout typically

2) Many Dems are in fact independent ... just Dems by birth

3) Progressives need to be more unified ....

[newyawker99]

24. Hi Penible!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[ThomWV]

10. College

Even taking the electral collage into consideration there are simply more of us than there are of them and I bleive in most of the states its a winner take all on the electoral college votes. Shit, Gore would have taken this state (West Virginia) in a landslide if he had only been able to get the already registered Democrats to vote Democratic. He did not need to get a single Republican to switch over.

Don't get me wrong, I'm one of the faithful and will vote for anyone who is running against whistle-ass. I'm just saying that GOTV and getting people who at least at one time felt an affiliation with the party to support it again. This is really the most important thing that Democrats can focus on and its become my pet project at least on a small scale. I have a son who is 27 and I have known many of his friends since their childhood and I still see them a lot. These are young guys who for the most part have never voted. No shit. I see it as my duty in life to get their asses registered and I swear, If I have to tie them down inside the back of the truck I am going to drag every single one of them to the polls just a little over a year from now. Every single one of us has to do all that we can. This is very serious business.

Thom

[Brucey]

12. Very tough for Dems to beat Electoral system

One problem is that people who say they are Democrats are much less likely to vote, much more likely to vote on faulty machines, much more likely to be disallowed from voting, and much more likely to vote for Republicans than people who say they are Republicans are likely to vote for Democrats. The other problem is that most people are apolitical. They vote for a candidate that has an appealing image to them. About 15% will nearly always vote liberal, about 30% will always vote conservative. That leaves 55% in the middle, and they lean toward conservative (Don't forget that there are more conservative Democrats than liberal Democrats). Even if you could get the majority to vote for a Democrat, as we saw in the last election, it doesn't lead to a victory because of the electoral college. It is nearly impossible for a Democrat to win in most southern and Western states. You absolutely need CA and NY plus many other big states. Gore had almost the right combination, if he'd just picked up Missouri or Tennessee for example. But it is very difficult for a Democrat to get the majority of electors. Even Minnesota, where I live, will probably go for Bush in 2004. We have never been the liberal state that is mythologized, we just elected a Bush-picked Senator and a far-right Governor. The suburbs are overflowing here and they are brainwashed beyond redemption. Debate is now impossible... they just want the money. So, sad to say, I don't think Dean or others can beat the system. Additionally, the Republican congress has passed laws allowing many states to do what Florida did in 2000 - deny voting to many Democrats. A revolution would be good... but who will be our leader?

[waggawagga]

14. Aw C'mon, the Glass is Half Full

I think the Democrats are on the right track if they nominate someone who has liberal politics and a conservative temperment. And it looks like this is what they're going to do (I think Dean has a better chance than Kerry but both are good). Dems are nervous because Bush has the yahoo vote in the solid south locked up? I say now is the time to write these people off. Go for a true realignment. Because if the Democrats can win the Northeast, West, and Great Lakes region every time they'll be in power forever. The job of the Dems in this election should be to convince the people in this Great Lakes region that they're better off voting Democrat (and I don't see why that's not doable, these are the states where the economy isn't doing well and they're not gung ho in support of the war). Even Clark isn't looking bad to me lately because he's the kind of person who'd go over well in Deluth and Cincinnati.

[ShaneGR]

17. Minnesota to Bush?? Hahahahahahahahahahaha

Never going to happen. You elected a Republican Senator because Wellstone died. Period. As for the governor's seat, well, didn't you have Jesse Ventura before?

[Brucey]

23. Here's why

Yes, Wellstone died... or was murdered... and he was very special. But the Bushies beat Mondale, a pretty big hitter himself. Here's why: Minnesota has gone Republican. The confusion is with the city of Minneapolis. The city is very liberal; but the state is not. The only Democratic strongholds are Mpls and the Iron Range. Minnesota as a state has always been in the middle nationally. The city of St. Paul used to be strongly Democratic, primarily workers and Irish Catholics, but they have swung more conservatively lately because of pro-life and pro-business and pro-sports. The outstate regions (other than the range) and the suburbs are heavily Republican. Bush came close to beating Gore in MN in 2000. Ventura won here for the same reason that Arnie will win in CA: People love their celebrities and excuse them for everything. Also because these guys are so down-home, just like the majority. I've been told that there was a time when people voted for someone whom they perceived to be better than them... now they want someone like them. Hence we get average intellects with dyslexia who love freedom, sports, patriotism, and corporate profits. Let's hope Bush fails even further. It may be our only hope. Still, there's revolution, if enough people have the guts.

[newyawker99]

25. Hi Brucey!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Brucey]

26. Thanks

It's nice to be among friends, especially in these harrowing times when goofballs and miscreants are running things.

[Kazak]

18. Yes...

A 100% registered democrat turnout would pretty much assure a win, I would think...

[jeter]

27. EXACTLY

I agree with you.

People will try to make it more complicated than it really is. Bush has made very little headway with Democrats. What has he given them? We need to get out our base and not antagonize them as the DLC does. We need to win all the states we did in 2000 (which shouldn't be too difficult) plus one. West Virginia? Ohio? Missouri? New Hampshire? Arkansas? Arizona? Nevada? Take your pick.

I must be very optimistic, but I see 2004 as a real easy election for us. Unless we make it more difficult than necessary. We have a knack for doing that.

[msmcghee]

28. Question - Even if a Dem wins . .

. . what happens in congress and the senate?

If the pukes keep control of those are we still fucked?