Good article for Koochies

excuse the pun in the headline, but I couldnt resist! Anyhoo, below is an article my bro sent me and I think it shows another reason DK should be our nominee.

The Cook Report - Five States Will Be Key In 2004 Election
Charlie Cook
As the fight for the Democratic presidential nomination heats
up, the electability argument is being bandied about more often.
Establishment-oriented political watchers, and particularly
backers of Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., and some other candidates,
argue that while former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean appeals to the
Democratic base, he would have a tougher time than Gephardt
winning a general election.

Within the Democratic base, a substantial number of voters
loathe George W. Bush, just as a substantial number of
Republicans despised Bill Clinton. So who are the swing voters,
and where do they live? It's the second part of that question
that is most relevant, as only 32 percent of Americans live in
the 16 states that strategists for both parties say will likely
determine the presidency in 2004. Democrats and Republicans
alike say that the contours of the 2004 election are not likely
to stray very far from those of 2000, no matter who is the
Democratic nominee.

As prime targets for Democrats next year, strategists point
to seven states, representing a total of 78 electoral votes,
that Bush carried in 2000: Arkansas (6), Florida (27), Missouri
(11), Nevada (5), New Hampshire (4), Ohio (20), and West
Virginia (5). Strategists also predict that nine states, with 92
electoral votes, that Al Gore carried in 2000 are likely to be
in play: Iowa (7), Maine (4), Michigan (17), Minnesota (10), New
Mexico (5), Oregon (7), Pennsylvania (21), Washington (11), and
Wisconsin (10).

Some strategists might quibble with this list. Many Democrats
would argue for adding Arizona, with its 10 electoral votes. But
Republicans, while conceding that the rapidly expanding Hispanic
vote is loosening the GOP's grip on Arizona, predict that the
state will not be up for grabs until 2008. Worth noting is that
nationally, after the 2000 election, redistricting switched
seven electoral votes from the Gore column to the Bush column.

Tennessee (11), Louisiana (9), and the disputed Arizona were
on the top-10 list of states that Bush won in 2000 by the
narrowest margins, but not on the narrower list of seven states
that Democrats are targeting for 2004. In Tennessee, the
presence of Vice President Gore on the top of the ticket no
doubt boosted Democrats in the last election, and they are very
likely to do worse there this time.

Of the 10 states that Gore carried with the smallest margins
in 2000, the only one that isn't on the Republican target list
is Vermont (3). Gore actually carried the state with 55 percent
of the two-party vote, so it really wasn't terribly competitive
last time around.

Putting aside Florida, which hardly qualifies as a Southern
state in any cultural or voting-history context, the only state
in the region that strategists for the two parties believe will
be in play is Arkansas. Some might try to make a case for
Louisiana, but there isn't much evidence that Bush has any real
problems there. Simply put, the South isn't where the 2004
presidential campaign will be fought. Gore won the popular vote
for the presidency, and came within an eyelash of winning the
job, all without winning a single Southern state. To capture the
presidency in 2004, the Democrats will likely have to do it
without carrying any Southern states. If Sen. John Edwards,
D-N.C., were to win the nomination, it's highly debatable
whether he would even win his home state, and being a North
Carolinian probably wouldn't help him much in Arkansas or
Louisiana. If retired Gen. Wesley Clark were to get the nod, he
would have a good chance to carry his home state of Arkansas,
and maybe even Louisiana, but it's unlikely that any other
Southern states would fall in line.

The battle will be over five states that touch the Great
Lakes: Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin,
which together account for 78 electoral votes -- 29 percent of
the 270 needed to win the presidency. Strategists are
increasingly pointing to Ohio, with 20 electoral votes, as the
state with the best chance of determining the election. The
Buckeye State has been an organizational nightmare for
Democrats, who don't hold one statewide elected office. But Bush
won the state in 2000 with just 52 percent of the two-party
vote. It's hard to see how Bush can get re-elected without
Ohio's 20 electoral votes. Watch Ohio.

National Journal

The Democrats DO NOT NEED THE SOUTH anymore to win a nationwide election. What they DO need is to appeal to the (former) Democratic base in the midwest that's felt alienated by the Clintons and Gores of this country who talk a good populist line, but govern like Rockefeller Republicans.

Ohio in particular is a good case. If the Democrats win all of Gore's 2000 states plus Ohio, they have a comfortable enough margin that they won't even have to worry about Jeb's conniving in FL.

Why do we spend so much time obsessing about getting the conservative redneck vote in the south, when the Repubs are stealing our base states in the rust belt and midwest out from under our noses?

If we choose a candidate who is not a sellout on economic issues (i.e., one of the so-called "moderates") the race is ours for the winning. Do the math-- we can DO IT!

You might want to trim it to four paragraphs and include a link, if you can. Site guidelines.

My mind's made up. Kucinich is the one. :D

:kick

Thanks!

I was born here, and lived the majority of my life here. I went away in the 80s, and when I came back the whole state seemed to have changed. It's really depressing, and sometimes it makes me want to go out and vandalise these people's property. But I know there are almost as many decent folks as there are greedy fucking repugs. In fact there're probably more, the obnoxious repugs are just louder.

I guess I need to get on the streets and register as many folks as I can to vote, and let the Democrat's own message carry those with enough brains to realise who works in their best interest.

I have a theory as to why: In the 1970s-1980s, MN was known to have an excellent public educational system, excellent public services, superb infrastructure, and a very good quality of life. Prices were low, housing was affordable, jobs were plentiful and well-paying, and although taxes tended to be higher, everybody got what they paid for.

But since the late 80s, things have changed. The states demography has shifted. We've had more yuppies moving here from most Repub states because of the great quality of life in Minnesota. Unfortunatly, these folk have brought their Repub politics with them, which includes cutting funding for almost everything.

And as we know, when the funding gets cut, the quality goes down. So now, instead of having one of the top two public education systems in the nation, we're now in the low teens. Critical state agencies are cutting back, or going without. The roads are falling apart, our schools don't have any money, and the good jobs are leaving.

It's very depressing for a native like myself to watch what was once a shining example of "the good life" (according to a TIME magazine cover article in 1972) of a decent welfare state collapsing under the greed of the right-wingers and their corporate sponsors. I only hope we can still salvage what's left of it for our children.