I just ran thru the electoral college calculator. It wasn't good.

I did the Electoral College Calculator on Gray Raven.com.

I gave us Oregon & New Mexico (which we barely won in 2000 and where Greens will shave us down again in '04).
I gave us Arkansas and West Virginia, which we lost in 2000 because pre-9/11 swing voters there just like & trust Bush
I gave us swing states Pennsylvania, Michigan, Maryland, Wisonsin, and Jesse Ventura's Minnesota.

Obviously in this scenario there was no October surprise, no summertime capture of Osama bin Ladin, no scare-mongering terrorist attack on a US target to line up Mom and Pop Main-Street behind their flag-wavin' God appointed president.

We still lost to Bush by 10 EC votes.

I'm optimistic about 2004, but I'm worried too.

Give Ohio to the Dem column. THey lost the steel tarrifs there.

I believe we'll win. But the odds are against us. Ohio still leans toward Bush. Steel tariffs will swing very few votes since a healthy majority of people who vote on that issue already vote for us. Ohio is still a mostly suburban/small town state. It's a long shot for us. We're more likely to pick up Florida or Arizona, I think. But we're not likely to pick them up either.

Otherwise we could save ourselves a lot of time and money and let W assume the title of Goofball-for-Life.

Bucky, maybe Texas has insulated you? But I'm seeing a lot of anger in the populace. I'm seeing a lot of Republicans are noticing the Emperor wears no clothes.

This fellow in the White House is not the uniter he said he was, he's been a divider. He's left too many children behind, and (Dean is quite right here) he's built up way too big a deficit for a lot of people to think of him as conservative.

I think this crowd running for the Democratic nomination has a lot of very good candidates in it. And they have a good shot of kicking this jerk out of office.

So don't despair too much.

--Brian

We need one or two of OH (maybe WV while we're at it), MO, FL (Ha!), NH. I doubt will when a single southern state unless Clark runs (and we get Arkansas). Hard, but not impossible.

Governor, our first woman; re-elected a Senator, another woman; and took back a House seat that was supposed to be rock solid for Repubs.
It's happening for us, make it happen for you.

would pick up NC, maybe another

That will help in NM, OK, AZ

He is working closely with American Indian leaders. :hi:

"The Native American Times without hesitation endorses the candidacy of Wesley Clark."
http://nativetimes.com/index.asp?action=displayarticle&article_id=3445

Oklahoma based, describes itself as "the Nation's Largest Independent Indian News Source." It is not everyone, but it is the first case oF a candidate endorsement by Native American orgs that I know about.

This website is sponsered in part by Redneck Supply.

Who is 'Redneck Supply'?

Nader got 70,000 votes in 2000; those aren't Republicans. I came up with 293.

JEB is there, but people will be watching FL with extra care this time around, and any foul play will be documented.

those 10,000 West Palm Beach Jews won't vote for Buchanan again, Nader won't be involved, there is a large, angry democratic poulation and GORE WON IT

The gropenator will appoint a Katherine Harris clone to purge the roles just before the election that's why he is there.

Remember who controls the legislature in Cali and who controlled in FL. :)

We also control every executive position other than governor.

in California only Arnold is republican. ALL other state offices are held by Democrats.ALL. Top to bottom.

his wife is also a Kennedy. We have that going for us too.

and Arnold has yet to show his magic.

Personal shenanigans aside, I don't think Schwarzenegger is a GOPer you should be afraid of. He's not right-wing, he's pretty centrist. And I don't think he's so committed to the Republican party that he would commit a fraud for them. I mean, I could see Jeb Bush doing it, but not really Schwarzenegger.

If we simply show up with some type of viable candidate, we get 183EV. I include Maryland in this, since a GOP governor makes it about as much in play as Wyoming with its democratic governor.

I've seen absolutely no signs of life for the GOP in MI, OR, PA, and NM. Tilting the national board would get Bush these states, but otherwise they're going farther by the day and year into our corner, either through demographic shifts (NM), disintigration of the northern progressive republican block (PA, OR), or a hemorrhage of support in the Arab community (MI). That gets us to 233.

Iowa and Wisconsin seem like they'll go for our ticket again. I also honestly think we'll hold on to Minnesota again. The face of the GOP that's done well was that of faux-moderation. That's 260.

So that leaves us with 10 EV to get over the top. There are some very good options. AZ and NV are moving towards us, AZ alone being sufficient, NV getting us halfway there. Nevada is an excellent candidate for a pickup, with Bush backsliding on a local promise in 2000, combined with population shifts leading to rapid growth in Las Vegas. West Virginia will be rather in play, especially if we get some type of pro-gun candidate. WV and NV would do it. NH and AR are strong possibilities for a regional candidate, and I think NH will be in play for Kerry or Clark. Add these states together, and it's a pool of 30 electoral votes of which we need 10.

In this analysis, I'm conceding to the GOP a number of states where the democrats have a chance, including CO, MT, LA, FL, MO, and OH (79 EV).

The other point I'd make is that capturing Bin Laden would probably give only a minor bump to Bush if we had a candidate who could handle it well. Look at Hussein's capture. 8 point bump for 20-30 days.

Stay cheerful, we have an excellent chance. No magic 8-balls can convince me otherwise, and that's all they are.
Have courage!

Ohio would put us way over the top so that even a Florida-size theft wouldn't be enough.

Ohio is ripe for the picking if our candidates run as economic populists: anti-NAFTA, pro-jobs, pro-universal healthcare, pro-union.

The economic "conservatism" of the Wall Street Dems has cost us dearly in the last decade. Our party has identified itself more closely with big business and Wall Street than it has with Main Street.

If we truly want to win in 2004, we NEED to run as economic populists-- the Repubs already have the Wall Street vote cornered. When we run economic populists, we win elections. When we don't, we lose. It's really that simple.

and I know we can take it. I'm here and West Virginians are not a happy bunch. We have a strong history of voting Democratic, as well. Whatever went wrong in 2000 will be fixed.

Gore's 267EV are now worth 260 because of the 2000 census reallocation of congressional seats.

Still, I think the right candidate could win WV. You say "whatever went wrong in 2000 will be fixed". That "whatever" was relative prosperity and a good job market, and it's been fixed since 2000.

That gives us 5. Nevada (5) is our best shot, IMO, although I think Clark and others would have a good chance at Arkansas (6).

I am pretty sure, so wouldn't you need to subtract one from Bush's column?

I think AZ, TX, FL, and GA each picked up multiple seats, while NY and PA lost multiple seats. Overall, the net loss for the states for which Gore was awarded electoral votes went down by 7, so that a rematch with the same results would get us 260, not 267.

I lived in West Va, & I think a pro gun position is needed.

Also, vet with a Southern background would not hurt.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

So I can't tell how easy it is to use, but here's the one I use. It's all text (is the Greyhaven one graphics or text?), but it works for me.

http://americanresearchgroup.com/ev/

But you are right that it may go to Bush. The 2002 elections were Minnesota's own earthquake where the Pubs took over both the governorship and the legislative body.

I think that what happened in Minnesota is what has been happening all across the country. People moved from the inner cities to the suburbs with different sets of priorities.

People who live in the suburbs are more likely to be self employed or to own their own small businesses, or to work for small businesses, often as a result of too many "reduction in forces." Their worries are different from what we call the traditional Democratic ones: they do not worry about employer sponsored pension plans - they don't have any. In many cases they have to pay for their own health insurance. This, by the way, was when I realized how Gephardt was so much out of touch with reality, when he wanted to force more employers to pay for health insurance. Individuals who are self employed or who own small businesses cannot be bothered with most of the regulations. For them a government program - any program - is, at best, irrelevant or at worst a hindrance.

They believe in personal responsibility and accountability and for them the Democrats have nothing to offer. Of course, WE know that when things are bad they will beg for a government assistance, but they do not think about it. This, of course, is a major difference between Conservatives and liberals: we DO think beyond our own personal immediate needs; we do think about the better good and we do try to anticipate future needs of all. But this kind of message falls on deaf ears of most suburban-living-SUV-driving-fox news-watching Republicans.

The reality is that we can no longer expect employers to take care of employees. Such "benefits" have long ceased to be "fringe," and most of us moved from traditional pension plans to 401Ks. After all, what good is an employer-sponsored pension plan if, like Bethlehem Steel, the company goes under and the funds are not there?

We have to work on security - of retirement, of health, of education - as being ready in the background when the need arises. The majority of the voters simply reject the role of government as the answer to everything.

I largely agree with what you posted, but I would also add that there's been an influx of new residents into MN, often from Republican states.

Many folk have been attracted to MN for the quality of life, good schools, decent public infrastructure, etc. All of this has typically been paid for with higher income and property taxes, which are at least 1-2% higher than neighboring states.

However, since the 1980s, we've seen an influx of people moving into MN from the south and other typically Republican areas of the country. They've tended to settle in the suburbs, don't like taxes, and vote Republican.

Of course, what they've failed to realize is that the reason we've had such a good quality of life in the past is because we've not been afraid to pay for it with higher taxes and investment in infrastructure.

Now, all the Repubs are bitching about how bad the schools have gotten, how miserable their commutes are in Mpls/St. Paul, and how there's not enough money to cover even basic public services. So they rob from the inner cities and rural areas to boost up the suburbs, which have been subsidized by the core city tax base throughout their existance.

Of course, the fact that the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor party is dominated by party hacks who have no clue on how to recruit new blood into the party is beside the point....

with the understanding that we were moving to a liberal state with, like CA, two Democratic senators.

At least, when the job offer came we thought that it would not be bad as we lived here when we first got married, some 20+ years ago. Four of the five households in our moving van were going to MN from CA.

We were looking forward to vote for Wellstone..

And, yes, I agree with you that conservatives do not think beyond their immediate selfish circle. They expect the good quality of life and good schools but do not want to pay for them. They do not think that quality of education even for "those" people in the inner city benefits everyone.

This is why we need to coat these messages with words (at 8th grade level or less) that they can understand.

And some of them would insure that we could run a toaster against Bush and win, and others would insure that we could run George Washington and lose.

I've looked at all the states that Gore/Lieberman picked up in 2000. The country has changed quite a bit in the past three years, but I don't see any reason we can't win ALL of the states that we won in 2000 -- with the possible exception of Florida. The fix is in again in 2004 where Florida is concerned, in my opinion.

That leaves us with 260 electoral votes, 10 shy of the 270 needed to evict the bastard living in the stolen house on Pennsylvania Ave. And that's not to say that those 260 votes will be EASY votes -- but I think that Clark, Dean, Kerry, and Edwards all have decent shots at picking them all back up.

I see Louisiana as very much in play here, also. I personally believe that Clark or Edwards would do very well there, and I think they could pick up the state. That's 9 votes, bringing us 1 tiny little electoral vote away from the White House.

I also see Arizona and Nevada in play, particularly for Wesley Clark. That would mean 10 and 5 electoral votes respectively. Getting either one or both would mean a win if Clark was the nominee.

On the Edwards side, I could see a pickup of either of the Carolinas, or West Viginia. Again, getting any or all of these states would mean a win for Edwards.

I'm not as sure about Kerry's support in the rest of the country, and Dean is an interesting commodity right now -- he has the potential to swing either wildly upward or wildly downward among voters right now. But I feel pretty confident about both Clark and Edwards. For full disclosure purposes, I'll be supporting Clark in the Michigan caucus, while Dean, Edwards, and Kerry are my next choices, respectively.

DEM States: Maine, Mass, NH, Vermont, CT, RI, NY, NJ, PA, DE, MD, WV, Michigan, IL, WI, Iowa, Minnesota, OR, WA, CA, NM, HI.

The rest go republican.

Calculator giving me 269-269???

that also produces a 269-269 outcome, and is quite plausible.

Dem states: CA OR WA NM MO IL MN WI MI HI DC MD DE NJ CT RI MA WV PA NY VT ME

Rep states: AK AZ NV UT ID MT WY CO TX OK KS NE ND SD IA AR LA IN OH KY TN MS AL GA FL SC NC VA NH

Note this scenario represents a Rep sweep of the South, with the exception of WV...and gives them FL, where I'm convinced the fix will be in again.

It also gives them NH, the most conservative, I think, of the New England States, and the only one Chimpy carried back in 2000.

The very real possibility of a 269-269 outcome is scary as hell, because, I suspect, if 269-269 happens...the House being controlled by the evil side...they will re-install Chimpy...at which point this country will literally tear itself apart!!

Think we're polarized now?? Let such a scenario occur and we may end up with Civil War!! And it won't be real "civil" I don't think!

in which case WE NEED TO GET THE SENATE BACK

but don't count on it with all the southern dem senators retiring this year

And the house vote is each state's delegation gets one vote, so Bush would carry it even in our best house pickup scenario.

The house actually did choose the president once, in 1800 (Jefferson over Burr)

Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Minnesota, Iowa, Arkansas, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, New York, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina.

274.

Not to rain on your parade, but people forget how close the Gore states were in 2000. Some were decided by less than a percentage point - a LOT of them, in fact.

Add to it that you're asking South and North Carolina - states that didn't even vote for CLINTON - to be included in a Democratic electoral strategy... isn't going to happen. Not easily, anyway.

There are five states on your list that would be VERY HARD to win.

North Carolina, South Carolina, Nevada, New Mexico, and Ohio.

New Hampshire and Arkansas, and even Iowa will be extremely difficult to carry, too. Bush has a major advantage in the electoral calculator right now. I'd give us a better shot at trying to carry Florida, or possibly - just possibly - Louisiana.

It happened once (in 1800, when the electors each cast two votes, with the winner becomming pres. and 2d place vp.). The house chooses the president, with each state delegation getting one vote. I think the GOP controls most of the state delegations.

The entire country lit up blue on Nov. 2!!!

538-0 chimpy loses!

Do you love my world or what?

:-)

that would be awesome all 50 states blue but thats a snowballs chance in hades that would happen. I looked at the election of 1932 on the calculator and that was the closet to a all blue states I ever seen.
oh well one can wish

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/pe1936ev.html

FDR won 46 states; Alf Landon won 2 (Vermont and Maine). FDR received 98.5% of the electoral vote (the largest majority in a modern election); Landon got 1.5%.

Maine at the time was regarded as a bellwether state; in fact, the saying went, "As goes Maine, so goes the nation." After the 1936 election, the saying became, "As goes Maine, so goes Vermont."

Not even favorite son Mondale was able to pull out a save.
Also don't take Ca-lee-for-nee-ah as a given. It's Ahhnold's now.
Maybe I'm just overly pessimistic...

the candidate will have to spend more time and money than they wanted there, but I doubt that CA goes all the way over to the pukes

back and found a VERY disturbing scenario. I gave the Dems all the states won in 2000 with the exception of Florida (the fix IS in) plus WV and NH. The results were a 269-269 tie (I believe). What would happen then. My gut tells me we should win a few states beyond this if the elections are fair.

So give back Oregon.

Jesse Ventura isn't governor anymore and Minnesota will go Dem

There is no way the Democrats lose Michigan.

Pennsylvania and Maryland are swing possibilites that could go either way.

We should win back Ohio, maybe capture New Mexico again, Florida is up for grabs...there's still a lot of angry Dem voters there, and those 10,000 Jews in WPB won't vote for Buchanan again.

Arkansas we could pick up with Clark on the ticket. Edwards would Bring NC and maybe another state with him. West Vriginia might go back to the dems if the candidate can run a slightly better campaign than Gore did.

I ran it and came out with a close Dem win, but there's a bunch of variables there

because they see the value of ABB

Bush lied in 2000 about Yucca Mt. and Kerry voted against it.

Gary Hart and Tim Wirth will campaign like crazy for Kerry in Colorado. where they are still hugely popular.

If we carry it, we'll be around 320-350 EV.

He's actually from Iowa!

New Hampshire and Ohio being two others.

Kerry has a perfect 100% gun grabbing voting record. This will hurt Democrats badly in many states that should have been competitive.

Warning: Nominate Kerry and we will lose by a landslide!

Kerry on gun rights:

Q: Do you find it necessary to kill animals for photo-ops?

A: I don't think the Democratic Party should be the candidacy of the NRA. And when I was fighting to ban assault weapons in 1992 and 1993, Dean was appealing to the NRA for their endorsement, and he got it. I believe it's important for us to have somebody who is going to stand up for gun safety in America and make certain that we make our streets safe, our children safe, and not allow people to get assault weapons in America.

Source: CNN "Rock The Vote" Democratic Debate Nov 5, 2003

Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations.

The Hatch amdt would increase mandatory penalties for the illegal transfer or use of firearms, fund additional drug case prosecutors, and require background check on purchasers at gun shows. (A YES vote supports stricter penalties).

Status: Amdt Agreed to Y)48; N)47; NV)5

Reference: Hatch Amendment #344; Bill S. 254 ; vote number 1999-118 on May 14, 1999

Voted NO on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks.

Vote to table (kill) an amendment to make it unlawful for gun dealers to sell handguns without providing trigger locks. Violation of the law would result in civil penalties, such as suspension or revocation of the dealer's license, or a fine.

Bill S 2260 ; vote number 1998-216 on Jul 21, 1998

http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/John_Kerry_Gun_Control.htm