possible new swing states for 2004

Cal
Arizona (Dem governor)
Kansas (Dem governor elected last year)

I doubt California and Kasas are swingers...and California? Bush may get a couple more percentage points (like 2 at most) but that's it. I'm sure they hate him out there and the Democrats will just use the same strategy that the Repukes used during the recall.

However, Arizona looks good.

but no action heros will be on the ballot

California and do long-distance volunteer work and financial contribution in states more in need of it, ... it now looks like we are going to need to do a full court press in California.

a lot has been written about the energy rip-off there, but GOP de-regulation has been almost as bad there

Fox News' poll indicated something like a 50% approval rating for Bush* among those who showed up to vote.

On edit: I think that was actually a "favorability" rating, rather than a job approval rating.

Is that supposed to be a joke? (But then again, look what the GOP won during the Raygun years.)

its possible

Sure, they elected a Democratic governor last year.

But her opponent was a tub-thumping hard-right conservative who said that he would oppose increasing state funding for education at the outset of the campaign. The footprint that left on his dick never went away, and had faded only slightly by election day.

Besides, Kansas only has six electoral votes, hasn't voted Democratic in a presidential election since . . . . wow, I can't even remember when. I do know that they haven't elected a Democrat to the Senate since 1932, which pretty much tells you all you need to know.

Now Missouri, on the other hand, swung narrowly to Bush in 2000, has eleven electoral votes, strong Democratic bases in St. Louis and Kansas City, and has lost more manufacturing jobs since 2001 than any other state. That's your target.

Kansas? I seriously doubt it.

Holden is weak gov, has been overriddenat least twice

if the Democratic base comes out

If McCaskill challenges Holden in the primaries, you're looking at a scenario where Democrats may get active and vote in large numbers.

The Puke Legislature in Missouri hasn't exactly covered itself in glory with its handling of the budget, and the job situation continues to suck big time.

the legislature hasn't set funds for a primary

There's a stipulation in HAVA that requires them to spend as much $ on every election as was spent in 2000 (the most ever spent on any election). It allows for a small surplus. There is enough money to fund primaries.

She's raising money to do it. I'm already seeing some yard signs, too. The Dems BETTER get active. Otherwise, we're going to get stuck with Matt Blunt. The puke leg has been very clever about tying Holden's hands so that he takes the blame for the damage they do. The media has served as a willing partner in crime. It's going to take some work to enlighten the general public.

but I have to leave, was just checking in. I will try to put the stats up later or tomorrow. There are lots of Repubs here but I have not heard too many who are crazy about Bush*. It is possible. From my experience here a democrat with a good agricultural policy could swing things. Kansans are a strange lot and could easily switch to a solid democrat. Just my take. Also, I have not studied the trends here. I am in eastern Kansas, western Kansas could be totally different but again, current farm policy is killing them.

Especially once Ah-nuld proves he's better at explosion movies than at vanishing mammoth deficits without tax increases.
BTW, I strongly recommend Greg Palast's most elightening column on Arnie's chumminess with Ken Lay et al and why the idiots that voted for him in California can forget about ever seeing a cent of the money the energy companies stole from them.
http://www.gregpalast.com

and California won't be a swing state

Arizona may be, and with the right nominee, we could put states like Oklahoma into play

of states that are somewhat likely (40% or better?) to go next time for a different side than they went last time.

Florida
Arkansas
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Missouri
Arizona
Oregon

This is all assuming a close election. If Bush wins or loses by 12 %, then lots of states will change sides.

We've suffered a pretty awful economy, and we have very high voter turn-out every election due to our system of all Vote-By-Mail.

Kansas has not vote Dem since 1964. The state is heavily Republican. No way in hell will it be competetive. Clinton never even came close to winning and Gore lost it badly.

If Kansas is even remotely competeitve next year then Bush is losing badly.

if * winning CA he's on his way to winning 40 + states....

You forgot West Virginia. The only thing that took this state to Bush in 2000 was the threat of gun control. As long as that is not an issue then this state votes Democrate. In fact there is a great deal of respect for the military in this state too, and if Clark is on the ticket you can absolutly bet this one is in the Democratic column.

Thom

Gore's environmental policy would shut down the mines and the union members would be out of jobs

And Arnold would be well served to stay off any stage with him. They might have voted for Arnold in a odd circumstance, but they will NEVER vote for Bush. Ever.

Governors

Sebelius current
Finney 91-95
Carlin 79-87
Docking 57-61

US Senator

McGill 30-39

US Representatives

Moore current
Slattery 83-95
Glickman 77-95
Keys 75-79
Roy 71-75
George 59-61
Hargis 59-61
Breeding 57-63

A Docking Served from 1966 to 1974.

Arizona possibly...I think the two states we should watch are West Virginia and Minnesota. I think West Virginia may come back, particularly if Dean is the nominee. Minnesota is gonna be a hard fight. I'd put it leaning Democratic...but it is going to be close