Obama wins in red states. How will he succeed in GE to get the most electorate votes?

[elixir]

Any thoughts?

[mculator]

1. They will be quick to point out Wisconsin

But you're right.

[democrattotheend]

7. Not just Wisconsin

Maryland, DC, Delaware, Connecticut, Washington, Illinois, Hawaii, Minnesota, Maine, and Vermont. Plus Iowa, which Gore won but Kerry lost...not sure how you classify that.

I think Clinton would win most if not all of those states too, just as I believe that Obama would win Massachusetts, Rhode Island, California, and New York easily.

[catgirl]

33. Not sure Clinton would win MN, WI, WA or ME

And the more negative she gets, the worse it is for her.

[Captain Hilts]

12. Where he outspent her over 5 to 1 and won among registered Dems by 3 points. nt

[PseudoIntellect]

52. GE =/= registered dems voting only.

[bowens43]

well it's pretty simple....

he'll win all the blue states and is much more likely to win the red states then hillary is....it's really not that difficult to understand. Independents hate Hillary, they like Obama.

[elixir]

41. He'll lose the blue states to McCain and will have a weak showing in the red states because he's

lost most of them to Hillary. I don't think you've thought this through. Repugs like Obama as exit polling has reflected, is that healthy for our party in the GE? No, those folks are going to migrate back to their party.

[Kittycat]

2. He will win the blue states because he's a dem.

And because he nearly split the wins in those "Big" states anyway. Now, he's breaking in to the red states, and has a chance of flipping those as well. No more 49/51 splits... We're going for 10-15% Margin wins in the GE, baby. :bounce:

[Alter Ego]

15. Exactly.

Clinton's getting wins in states that are traditionally Democratic in the GE.

Obama's getting HUGE wins in "fence-sitting" states and the South.

He'll be fine.

[elixir]

38. I don't think they're all fence sitting states, some are clearly red.

[Alter Ego]

46. That's true.

But places where we worry each election cycle--places like Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa--ARE fence-sitters. And places like Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, and even Missouri are screaming to turn blue in the next election cycle.

My point is that I believe he has a better chance of bringing those states in than she does.

[VotesForWomen]

28. the big *battleground* states (FL, MI, PA, OH, etc) are the ones that matter. being a dem by no mean

means guarantees a win there. that's why hill's strength in those states is so important. it could very easily be the difference between winning and losing the GE.

[loyalsister]

43. You keft out MO

Claire McCaskill's state

[elixir]

39. If he's weak in the blue states, how will he win them in the GE?

[jgraz]

3. Because there's no way New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey or California vote for a Rethug

Seriously, this is one of the dumber Clinton canards.

[elixir]

37. Thank you for bumping this. If it wasn't true, you wouldn't have stopped by.

[jgraz]

49. gee, with that's some stellar reasoning right there

plus, if you close your eyes, it makes the tooth fairy come extra fast. :crazy:

[nonconformist]

40. He needs the Hispanic vote in CA

And he's just not getting it. Nor the Asian vote. Bill Clinton was the one that turned Asians into Democratic voters in the first place. They'll vote McCain if Obama is the nominee.

[casus belli]

4. Your premise is inaccurate.

And also fails to consider the very real possibility that he could turn some red states blue.

[AlertLurker]

20. The REAL problem is that HE WOULD HAVE TO.

Clinton so far in Blue States = 88 Electoral Votes
Obama so far in Blue States = 74 Electoral Votes

Doesn't seem like a big deal, but it is actually FOUR small states, there...

[democrattotheend]

22. How did you treat NH, IA, and NM?

For the purpose of your analysis? Those are the states that voted differently in 2000 and 2004. Were they considered blue states?

[AlertLurker]

26. I discounted them all as Red from 2004.

State-------EV----Blue/Red-2004---Obama/Clinton

INDIANA-----11----------R
IOWA---------7----------R----------O
NEW MEXICO---5----------R----------C

You are right - these states have changed from 2000 to 2004, and there is no reason to beleive that it won't happen again.

The point I was attempting to make earlier was that HRC wouldn't have to work as hard to win as many Red States as Obama would HAVE TO, since her support in the Blue States is somewhat stronger than Obama's....

If Obama could actually win some red states against a 'Puke, however, it's a whole new ball game.

[WVRevy]

36. That's a BS number

You're counting Michigan and Florida in that 88, which is complete and utter bullshit, and everyone knows it. You can hardly take credit for Michigan when Obama's name wasn't even on the friggin' ballot! Take those out and where are you? With Obama in the lead again.

[elixir]

42. If he can't win the red states now, how will he win them in the GE?

There's a possibility that he'll turn a red to blue but it's an outside chance.

[casus belli]

50. He's doing great in red states.

I'm not sure I follow what you're trying to say.

[hadrons]

5. He'll be fine ....

The people voting for Clinton will be voting for Obama in the GE if he's the candidate

[eissa]

6. Do you think if he is our nominee

that he would lose the blue states? That NY, CA, MA, etc. would go for McLame? I'm quite confident that not only would he carry all the blue states, but would also fare much better in the red states if he were the nominee.

On edit: Man, these boards move fast!

[RoadRage]

8. Sigh.. because the blue states will continue to vote for Obama..

California isn't going to wake up in November and think that McCain is better then "the most liberal senator in 2007".

However - Obama's huge inroads in some of the "red" states could get one or two of them to flip to blue, thus giving us the electoral votes needed to win.

I'd rather have someone doing well in blue states, and kicking ass in red states then doing really well in blue states, but continuing to get beat by 20 - 30 point margins in red states. That isn't going to get us the new votes we need in November.

[dana_b]

10. bingo!!

However Ohio and Florida will still be problem children.

[Bok_Tukalo]

11. And Pennsylvania as well

But with an Obama candidacy, the Ohio-Penn-Florida paradigm is out the window and states like Virginia, North Carolina, Lousianna, Arkansas, Nevada, and Colorado get interesting.

A Clinton candidacy is 2000 and 2004 all over again with each side fighting for 100,000 votes in Ohio. Predictable and easily managed with a Luntzian political machine that may or may not win but nothing new.

[underpants]

19. Fine change the paradigm again-this is 1992 3 elections ago

[dana_b]

25. interesting

so Clinton may be able to take Pen and Ohio but I doubt that Obama can. They seem to be more conservative now than in '92. Does that really promote their own interests? It would be very interesting to get into the heads of these voters.

[underpants]

35. Welcome to DU

:hi:

[Bok_Tukalo]

27. Are advocating a Perot run?

Or do you really think Montana is blue?

[underpants]

29. No I am just saying that nothing is set in stone

that is why a 50 state campaign is necessary

[Bok_Tukalo]

31. And I am saying that the 50 state strategy is not Clinton's

Her candidacy (this is a metaphor) will be 100,000 votes in Ohio.

Obama's won't be. Whether you think that is good or bad is up to you.

[catgirl]

34. And Barack may pick up SC

He got more votes than the top two republicans combined.

[Vinca]

9. Obama will win blue states just because he's the Democratic candidate.

He might pull off a red state win because he has crossover appeal. The argument that Hillary has won the big states and that's why she should be the candidate is foolish. It's unlikely many of the big state Democrats who voted for Hillary won't vote for Obama over a Republican. So Obama will carry blue states, purple states and has an outside shot at a red state.

[JackCo]

13. Exactly my thinking..nt

[Alter Ego]

14. Wisconsin, Minnesota, Washington, Maryland, Virginia, Vermont...

Connecticut, Maine, D.C...I'm sorry, what was your question again?

[democrattotheend]

21. You forgot Delaware, Illinois and Hawaii

Although Virginia is not a blue state yet. But it will be!

[Alter Ego]

23. Oh yeah...I did, didn't I?

And I counted Virginia because it wants so desperately to go blue.

[Mass]

16. He won as many blue states as Hillary Clinton

[onenote]

17. well, since any Democrat will win in the blue states, having a strong red state candidate is a plus

That's as logical as suggesting that HRC is a stronger candidate because she won in states like California and New York, since, and your crazy if you think otherwise, the Democratic candidate is going to win those heavily blue states whether its HRC or Obama.

The point is that you can't simply look at which states a candidate wins in the primaries as evidence of whether they will/won't win those states in the GE.

[DearAbby]

18. Being a Democrat, he will likely take blue states

they are not the problem, picking up some red states, swing states is the key. Red states will be harder. But if the Independents and Democrats come through in the red states, by way of popular vote count, + pick up the swing states, we can take the election in November.

[mikelgb]

24. He'll be the only Dem on the Ballot?

is that good enough?

what are you going to vote for experience?

[VotesForWomen]

30. of course he'll get the blue states; the big *battleground* states (FL, MI, OH, PA etc) are the ones

that matter. these are the ones that can make or break an election, and hillary is stronger in these states. this is a critical fact that can not be ignored by dem voters or party leadership.

[Bok_Tukalo]

32. He may lose three of those four and still win

It would be a difference general election with him running than what we are used to.

The "battleground" would change.

[557188]

51. If you really believe that

I have a bridge to sell you.

Its incredible how all you armchair electoral strategists fail to understand the actual system and how to actually win.

[Bok_Tukalo]

54. I understand the Ohio-Penn-Florida strategy

I just think that Obama is not in that paradigm. He can lose two of those three and still win (unlike Clinton or McCain) because Nevada, Colorado, Virginia, North Carolina and possibly New Mexico come into play.

The electoral map gets shook up and I see that as a positive.

Better to fight over the West and the Atlantic seaboard and maybe even the south than to duke it out, yet again, for 100,000 votes in Ohio.

[Sir Jeffrey]

44. Just posted this in another thread...

Here:

http://www.270towin.com /

Whatever Kerry got in 2004, you can probably assume that either nominee would carry those states as well.

I see a lot about FL and OH. FL and OH would be nice, but consider this:

Obama can win the nomination without FL and OH. How? By taking Kerry's blue states, VA, and either MO, IA, LA, GA, CO, NM, or NV. Of that group of new states, Obama won VA, MO, IA, LA, GA, and CO. There is a lot of speculation that Obama could pick Tim Kaine as VP. That would be genius in my book, because it effectively makes VA a "leans Democrat" state. At that point, McCain would be on the defensive in 8 states...and all Obama would have to do is go 1 for 8 to win the nomination, even if he loses OH and FL.

[DemGa]

45. He wouldn't -- it would be an utter disaster...

As much as I would hate it, the Obamas should hope for VP.

[NoBorders]

56. Wrong. Please read this:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/6/145023/7178/225/470640

[gravity]

47. Well he will win more red states nt

[Renew Deal]

48. Hillary just won two red states to stay alive

And Obama has won more blue states. So how will she succeed in the GE?

[Radical Agitator]

53. United States presidential election swing states, 2000

Blue

* New Mexico- 0.06% 366 votes
* Wisconsin- 0.22% 5,708 votes
* Iowa- 0.31% 4,144 votes
* Oregon- 0.44% 6,765 votes
* Minnesota- 2.40% 58,607 votes
* Pennsylvania- 4.17% 204,840 votes

Red

* Tennessee- 3.86% 80,229 votes
* Nevada- 3.55% 21,597 votes
* Ohio- 3.51% 165,019 votes
* Missouri- 3.34% 78,786 votes
* New Hampshire- 1.27% 7,211 votes
* Florida- 0.01% 537 votes


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from List of 2000 swing states)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_2000_swing_states

[NoBorders]

55. According to SUSA, Obama picks up more delegates than Clinton in GE

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/6/145023/7178/225/470640