Please people, stop trying to extrapolate primary victories in solid red

[WCGreen]

states into general election wins in November...

It's a dangerous fools game...

Having a fifty state strategy, as Dean wishes, is a wonderful sentiment, but in a general election, the candidate is limited as to how much they can spend...

The campaigns have got to focused...

If the party can support it, so be it...

But honestly folks, a caucus win in a Dakota will not translate into a general election win...

Politicians, like a business looking for customers, must first shore up their loyal base, then look for people on the fence and finally go after the hard core opposition...

And we are running a campaign, by definition an enterprise destined to be quick, in relative terms, and final...

Nixon made a pledge back in 1960 to visit every state after the convention...

The Kennedy camp was elated when Dick was out campaigning in Alaska while Kennedy minions were out registering corpses in Chicago (I kid, I kid)...

Seriously, one of the reasons Nixon looked so haggard at the debate was because he was flying all over the country trying to keep his promise...

Primary victories are part of the process to get you to the general...

After that, shore up the base, look for the wavering states and then, only then, go after the other guys votes...

[kikiek]

1. I was look just thinking about that. In Alaska just over 400 dems voted in primary. Thousands of

republicans did. I don't know if there is a correlation between number of voters in the primary, and which way the state votes in the GE. If there is the states that dems need to work on is pretty obvious. But some of the red states are looking blue this year. And from the last election some barely blue states aren't looking as close. The big question for the dems will be if the primary voters will carry over to the other candidate once the primary is over. I believe either way the losing candidate will have to fully support the winning one. There will be bad feelings on both sides and they will need to work to repair them.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

2. Is AK an Open Caucus or Praimay? red states are always blue in the Primary to Dems.......

just as blue states are always red to repubs in the Primary..BUT they are NOT that color in a General Election.

So when someone like Obama claims he has or can turn red states blue it is BS....Utah, North Dakota,Wyoming, Kansas will NEVER be blue in NOV never have and prob never will be.

[kikiek]

3. Not sure but here is the link that lists all the states.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660914#AK

[ElsewheresDaughter]

4. thank you I have the link and I added something to my post above

:hi:

[kikiek]

6. I agree. I believe in Hillary.

[9119495]

5. I think he is talking about possibly South Carolina, Mississippi

Ohio, and such. Kerry actually was somewhat close in MS (He got 44%, I think). I don't think Obama is saying ID is definitely in the blue column so lets not say he is. Remember, democrats have surged to the leadership in states like KS, MT, and OH. ND has two popular Dem. senators too.

[WCGreen]

13. Getting 44% of the vote is still trailing by 12 points...

That's a lot of voters to convince...

[9119495]

22. True,

but that was Mass. war criminal, national traitor, metal throwing John Kerry. I think both Clinton and Obama could do better than he in MS.

[zanne]

9. That would be more convincing without the giant Hillary. nt

[TheFarseer]

7. I think he can pick off a electoral vote in NE

In Nebraska, they award an electoral vote for each congressional district and two for carrying the state. I think he can get teh Omaha district based on the outpouring of support for him this past week and the fact that we have had some close races for Congress and some other local elections. I think a very good Democratic candidate has a chance against a weak republican candidate. I also think he is much more likely to carry Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota and states like that. It IS important to compete in Red and Purple states. Hillary cannot win with New York, Massachusetts and California.

[ArkySue]

32. You're kidding, right??

Nebraska:
STATE INFORMATION: 5 electoral votes
1,138,069 total registered voters --
33% Democratic,
50% Republican,
17% nonpartisan/other


The state is 50% Republican, they will vote Republican.

[HeraldSquare212]

8. I don't think that will be Obama's strategy

I think he'll be a lot more aggressive in red states, or at least some of them. They've had historic turnouts among Dems in some of those states, including a lot of people registering as Dems in order to vote in the primary or caucus. That doesn't mean he'll take them all, but at a minimum it means McCain will have to spend a lot of time and effort protecting his base.

[WCGreen]

12. First of all, he has to have the money to do that...

The way the presidential campaign is set up, there are limited funds...

BTW, if Obama doesn't do it that way, he will have had fools running his campaign...

[HeraldSquare212]

15. ummm... he's been pretty good at money raising, don't you think?

He's been on the air in every state and had aggressive on-the-ground presence. This is a guy who can campaign both ways: wholesale with ads (CNN said those who voted based on TV ads voted for Obama) and retail with canvassing, phone banks and GOTV. He's got the whole spectrum covered.

[WCGreen]

16. Except there are limits in the general election...

In case you forgot...

Public financing of the presidential general election has been around for decades...

Try to keep current...

[HeraldSquare212]

18. Obama Passes on Public Funds for '08 Bid

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/07/ap/politics/mainD8N517O00.shtml

-snip-

The Illinois senator has decided to forego the public funds, said an official close to the Obama campaign, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The move allows him to raise and spend unlimited private money.

-snip-


You're missing being "current" by at least a year.

[WCGreen]

19. Well then, I stand corrected...

I missed that article...

[Exultant Democracy]

10. What about swing states like MO and CO? Purple states that will be key to a GE victory

and places where we could pick up more then a few seats that we want if we have a strong ticket.

Who won there again, oh yeah Obama.

[WCGreen]

11. In a primary...

But I do agree...

MO and CO are the best bets to go blue...

I really think my own state will tend toward the blue...

[GalleryGod]

14. Excuse Me, Bill. You want to back off that tone of yours.

Don't lecture me,Friend.
You want to layout resume's ? Political Activity & IRL (teaching Poli sci at a college)


FOR HER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[WCGreen]

17. What tone...

Jesus, lighten up a bit...

If you don't want to be lectured, then don't read the post...

You may "teach" poli-sci...

But I have made a tiddy sum running campaigns over the last twenty or so years...

It's all in the numbers...

And the way we finance presidential campaigns...

I was going to ad more...

But it's just a waste...

[Hobarticus]

36. Oh my goodness. Someone's wound a little tight. eom

[CaliforniaPeggy]

20. Well said...

K&R

:patriot:

[VolcanoJen]

21. Ya know, we're making this out to be far more complicated than it is.

All Obama or Clinton needs to do in November? Win every state John Kerry won, plus Ohio or Florida.

Picking up one of the odd red states would be fun indeed, but wholly unnecessary.

[WCGreen]

24. That is true...

[intaglio]

23. I seem to recall the same sentiments coming out before

the re-capture of Congress last November

[WCGreen]

25. They had a fifty state strategy..

They also had winnowed it down to the most likeley House Seats....

And even then, several of the dem's who popped in Red states were self financed...

We can't afford a fifty state strategy even if I was wrong about Obama or Clinton taking matching funds...

There just isn't enough time or resources available...

If we lose Nebraska and Montana, states Bush easily won last time, and pick up Ohio...

Then we win..

[Recursion]

28. We can't afford *not* to have a 50-state strategy

Obama is a Democrat who is finally showing the kind of ground-game that the GOP has thrashed us with for so long. States are "red" or "blue" based on how they vote, and campaigning changes how people vote.

[mohc]

26. Winning "Red States"

I do not think many are saying that Obama is going to win all these red states that he is winning. What it shows, in my opinion, is his ability to win over swing voters. In blue states, a democrat can win the primary solely by winning over base support, as the base is large. In red and purple states, the base is not as big, and swing voters play a much bigger role in winning the primary. It is next to impossible to win the Democratic nomination without winning a sizable portion of the base, which Obama has done. The argument that Clinton has won a small margin over Obama among the base is not a very convincing argument to me as to his deserving the nomination or not. Most of Clinton or Obama's base support would transfer over to the other in a general election. In other words, the margin is close enough to show that Clinton maybe slightly preferred by the base, but Obama is certainly not being rejected. On the other hand, Obama is dominating Clinton among non-base support, the very support that we will need to beat the Republicans in November. He has done this by winning swing voters, some cross-over Republicans, and most importantly by broadening the voting pool by bringing in new voters. The likelihood of full transfer of these voters in the general election from Obama to Clinton is not particularly high. Regardless, at the end of the day Democrats in red states are still Democrats, and their votes must have the same weight as those in blue states. Red states have fewer Democrats ergo they have fewer delegates to the convention, and that is where blue states get their greater influence. If Obama can put together large wins in the red states while keeping the blue states split small, there really is no good argument against him winning the nomination.

[557188]

27. OHIO OHIO OHIO OHIO

Obama is weak in Florida

Obama is weak in Ohio

NO ONE IS PAYING ATTENTION TO THIS!

[WCGreen]

30. Ohio is the key to victory this year...

[Jed Dilligan]

31. God, I'm sick of those two states controlling our future. nt

[OzarkDem]

34. Dems are in charge of Ohio voting now

No stolen elections here this time.

[Carrieyazel]

35. That doesn't mean a Dem will win Ohio this year. Repukes can win there this year without stealing.

Rural Ohio is not going for Clinton or Obama in a million years. It will be another one-state do or die and we will blow it.

[ctaylors6]

29. some numbers: 2004 swing state vote differences and 2008 primary results

5% or less:
Wisconsin, Kerry, 0.38%
Iowa, Bush, 0.67%
New Mexico, Bush, 0.79%
New Hampshire, Kerry, 1.37%
Ohio, Bush, 2.11%
Pennsylvania, Kerry, 2.50%
Nevada, Bush, 2.59%
Michigan, Kerry, 3.42%
Minnesota, Kerry, 3.48%
Oregon, Kerry, 4.16%
Colorado, Bush, 4.67%

5%-10%:
Florida, Bush, 5.01%
New Jersey, Kerry, 6.68%
Washington, Kerry, 7.18%
Missouri, Bush, 7.20%
Delaware, Kerry, 7.60%
Virginia, Bush, 8.20%
Hawaii, Kerry, 8.75%
Maine, Kerry, 8.99%
Arkansas, Bush, 9.76%
California, Kerry, 9.95%

2008 Primary Results/remaining:

Wisc 2/19 open primary
Iowa 1/3 Obama (caucus)
NM 2/5 Clinton (closed primary)
NH 1/8 Clinton (primary, dems +indeps)
Ohio 3/4 open primary
PA 4/22 closed primary
Nev 1/19 Obama (caucus)
Mich 1/15 ??
Minn 2/15 Obama (caucus)
Oregon 5/20 closed primary
Colo 2/5 Obama (caucus)
FL 1/29 ??
NJ 2/5 Clinton (open primary)
WA 2/9 Obama (caucus)
Mo 2/5 Obama (open primary)
Virginia 2/12, open primary

I cobbled this from a few places, so sorry for any mistakes! I thought it was interesting to have the real swing state info in one place.

[sampsonblk]

33. Strongly disagree

A 50 state strategy is common sense.

The reason why your strategy appears necessary is because we haven't had a 50-state strategy. If we work every year to become more competitive in other states, then when the big election years come, we will have more states to choose from. Then your strategy commes into play.

The strategy you outline is good for the final months of a campaign. But before that, its common sense to try to expand the party and create more options for us.

Over the long haul, our party will be much stronger, and the electoral math will start to shift strongly in our favor.

[WCGreen]

37. Isn't that what we are talking about...

The final two months of the campaign...

From convention to election is two months...

[sampsonblk]

38. If so, then you're right.

I think Howard Dean (and every other major Dem) is smart enough to know not to pour vital resources into still-red areas in the last few weeks/months of the campaign.