My formula for a Democratic electoral victory in 2004 (long post warning)

The following is my formula for a Democratic Presidential victory in the 2004 electoral college.

This model assumes that the following states, listed with their electoral votes (post 2000 census redistricting), have a strong Republican base and are thus, very likely to vote for the Republican nominee in 2004. Just about all of these states can be considered locks for the Republicans. Keep in mind that it is possible for us to win a couple of these states, but that would probably only happen if there has been a 'groundswell' of support for our candidate, in which case we would win the election easily. Barring that groundswell of support, we are likely to lose all of the following states:

AL 9, AK 3, AR 6, AZ 10, CO 9, GA 15, ID 4, IN 11, KS 6, KY 8, LA 9, MS 6, MT 3, NE 5, NC 15, ND 3, OK 7, SC 8, TN 11, TX 34, UT 5, VA 13, WY 3.

This formula also assumes that the following states have a dependable Democratic base and are thus, very likely to vote for our candidate in 2004. I don't think the Republicans have much of a shot at picking off any of these states, without another strong showing by Nader. His presence on the ballot in 2000 made WA, OR, NM, MN, WI, and IA VERY competitive. I think the chances of that happening in 2004 are reduced, because I believe a certain percentage of the Nader voters will put their idealism aside, and do whatever is necessary to vote Bush out of office. I am guessing that about 25% of Nader voters will do so. That 25%, coupled with the Democratic voting history of the following states, makes them all very likely to vote for the Democratic nominee in 2004:

CA 55, CT 7, DE 3, DC 3, HI 4, IL 21, IA 7, ME 4, MD 10, MA 12, MN 10, NJ 15, NY 31, OR 7, RI 4, VT 3, WA 11, WI 10.

Keep in mind, that a groundswell of support in favor of the Republican candidate, could cause some of these states to vote for that candiate. If that happens, we lose the election.
Likewise, if the "Nader factor" helps Bush win even one of these states, then we will likely lose the election.

This adds up to a 217-206 electoral vote lead for the Democratic candidate. With 270 votes required for victory, we will need to get 53 more votes from the following nine states, all of which will be very competitive. I believe that the 2004 Presidential election will be decided by these states:

Group A - FL 27, MI 17, OH 20, PA 21
Group B - MO 11, NV 5, NH 4, NM 5, WV 5

As with 2000, I feel we will win the election if we win FL, although I think that will be very difficult to accomplish. For the sake of argument, this model will assume that we will lose Florida. If I'm wrong, then that will be fine, because we will have won the entire election. The Republicans CAN'T win the election without FL, we however, CAN.

OH is another state, whose electoral prize could just about guarantee a victory for us. We lost OH in 2000, but since then, they have watched 15% of their manufacturing jobs be Walmartted out of the country. This new dynamic gives us a legitimate shot at winning Ohio. History has shown that when a Democrat wins OH, they win the entire election. For the sake of argument, however, I will assume that we will again lose Ohio. Like FL, we can win without Ohio, but the Republicans can't.

In order to win without FL and OH, we do need to win both MI and PA. We won those states by 5.2% and 4.2% in 2000. Add to those margins, some Nader converts, a weak manufacturing economy, the Republican war on unions, and on the moderate cultural values of these states' residents, and we are on our way to winning both MI and PA, again. Further evidence that they are shifting towards our party is demonstrated by the fact that both states replaced their Republican Governors with Democrats in 2002.

Scenarios exist where we could still win the election, while losing either MI or PA, but those scenarios are extreme long shots, and require us to sweep almost all of the remaining contested states. Because of that, I feel we must treat MI and PA as if the entire election depends upon us winning them. The Republicans know this, and they will fight like hell for them. We must fight back in kind.

With victories in both MI and PA, we are now up to 255 electoral votes. That brings us to group B, needing 15 votes for victory.

If we win MO, then our job becomes relatively easy, needing only to win one of the remaining four states. In 2000, we lost MO by 3.3%, with Nader getting 1.6%. Missouri's manufacturing industry is taking a beating from the Bush "recovery", so our chances at winning MO are improving. Their Democratic voting urban population centers, and union memberships, give us a strong base from which to start. Still, it will be an uphill battle for us to win MO.

Winning MO just might win us the Presidency in 2004, but without it, then we absolutely MUST win NM, NV, and WV, in order to get the 15 needed votes. NH and their 4 (Republican leaning) votes, become meaningless. We should have a reasonably good shot at winning NM again, but winning WV and NH both may prove to be even more difficult than winning MO. I feel the entire election may boil down to us needing to win either MO, or else both NV and WV.

In 2000, we lost NV by 3.7%. Even winning all of Nader's 2.5% would not help us carry this state. Hopefully, Bush's bumbling of the Yucca Mountain issue, will give us a shot at winning NV. Their rising Hispanic population also helps us.

WV is a traditional Democratic state, that we somehow managed to lose in 2000. I have yet to see evidence that the WV voters are ready to come home to our party. Bush tried to buy their votes with the steel tariffs, and then had to backtrack in the face of united European opposition. Like NV, we have hope that Bush's mistakes will push WV into our column. I would suggest a 'two pronged' attack that includes REACHING OUT to their voters, instead of just sitting back and waiting for Bush to LOSE them.

In summary - Of the 'competitive' states, we absolutely must win one of these five combinations, in order to win the Presidency:

MI, PA, MO, and then either NH, NM, NV, or WV (that's four combinations)
or else
MI, PA, NM, NV, and WV

The equally important states that we MUST protect (from the Nader factor) are:
IA, MN, OR, WA, WI and possibly Maine and Vermont too.

The states that we have a decent shot at picking off, which could guarantee a victory for us are:

FL and OH.

Comments? Which possible Vice Presidential candidate gives us the best shot at winning one of the key states?

Past performance does not ensure future results.

Look at the 17 states that Kerry is running ads:

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0401a.html

Maine, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Iowa, New Mexico, Oregon, Wisconsin, Florida, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Nevada, West Virginia, Arizona, Arkansas, Washington and Ohio.

We need about 100 EV from these. With BBV, we may need more.

If it were, then I think the race would be over already.

That leaves MO, OH, FL as deciders. All three have, or had, presidential candidates in the primary race (a rough indicator of how crucial those states are) and I think the VP candidate will probably be either Gephardt or Graham.

Obviously, he would "lock up" NM for us, and possibly give us a good shot at NV. CO, FL, and AZ could also be influenced by a Richardson nomination.
Gephardt would go over well in MO. Who could help us win WV? Why hasn't Jay Rockefeller been mentioned as a possible candidate? Both FL senators are said to be on the short list.

:wow: quite a body of work. I did a double-take on who was so smart (you).
thanks :thumbsup:

Bookmarking! Thanks paradise.

didn't even know that, but you deserve it. great info, and analyses; a lot of thought, and work put into it. got me thinking, calculating, plotting, and having fun to boot. :)
(since i'm mostly livid, a little fun couldn't hurt.)

The paragraph that started out "Winning MO just might..." had the line "...but winning WV and NH both may prove..." should have read "...but winning WV and NV both..." Editing period expired! Damn!