Can the Presidency today be won Without Florida & Ohio?

No one ever has

If all they have to do to stay in power is to continue to subvert the
elections in TWO states where their minions are already in control,
then all is lost.

We have to turn some more purplish states blue!

but I agree that any victory in 2008 without Florida or Ohio is very unlikely.

we have to plan for the future and watch those states gaining electoral votes. Some North eastern states may very well be losing votes over the next decade.

...and he would've beaten Bush 279-259.

..now they're about what cali was at that time. 40% or so. Kerry would win all those states without dispute if the election were now.

2008 might have different dynamics. Kaine's victory last night proved that Virginia could be a viable swing state.

But given the numbers you need at least one (Florida or Ohio) to win.

anything when only one side is playing by the rules.

Reform initiatives in Ohio went down in flames.

The struggle to regain democracy in Florida and Ohio may take many years.

Our country cannot afford even four more years of Republican rule!

We must find the electoral votes we need to win elsewhere.

It is time for Colorado to turn blue. And Virginia.
And Iowa. And New Mexico.

Some were close. All have a functioning 2-party system, and most
have Democratic governors, who hopefully have some incentive to prevent
Repubs from stealing elections in their state.

Can we win without Florida and Ohio?

I think. Eventually, out of all the lawsuits and job losses there and so on (the exit polls had them voting substantially for Kerry in 04), I think there could be reform of the vote counting procedures, probably the only way that Dems can win anywhere important.

FL would be a Dem state too I think but for the voting machines. However, I don't see any way of making changes there at least for the interim. The Bush mafia there is just too strong for now.

It'd be nice if we could spread a bit of Carolina blue around here in North Cackalackey, but right now except for the main urban centers it's a sea of red.

Really - all we need is some sizeable state that voted for the dark side to come to the light. Of course the more the merrier.

Basically all it'd take is a shift of 17 electoral votes from last time (provided all of what voted for Kerry went for Kerry in 2004 goes for the Democratic Party candidate for 2008) for a win. Iowa and a SE state such as Virginia, North Carolina or Georgia would do it.

However I bet if NC voted Democratic for 2008, then Ohio would have presented the Democratic Party candidate with a landslide, as NC is more "red" than OH.

virginia ;-)

in any case, those states don't like him much anymore at all, about as low approval ratings for him now as cali did back then. He'd lose majorly in those reliabily bush states...

Who are you referring to with "He'll lose Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, Iowa, maybe even Virginia"

Who will lose those places? :wtf:

he's doing about as bad in the polls in those places as he was here in 04. Back then, he was still 50 50 in all those places.

Great picture!

:D

For example, in 1984 Reagan could have lost both FL and OH, and still have had more than enough electoral votes to win. Same with Clinton in 1992 and 1996.

Not saying it's likely, but appeal to enough voters in other states and you don't need either FL or OH.

States tend to have a built in partisan bias and then seem to be pushed by national trends somewhat proportionally towards one way or the other. For example, Ohio is naturally a couple points Republican so Clinton's 8 point win in 1996 translated into a 6 point win in Ohio. There are exceptions and variations on this particularly when home states are taken into account and there are third parties running as well as what issues are important. Also, there is simply slight variance from election to election.

Now, because there are a lot of states that are practically tied such as Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio, Florida, and New Mexico, a strong national trend one way or the other can push them all into one camp like Clinton in 1996. Bush had a slightl national trend in his favor in 2004 and won four of these five states. In 2000, Gore had a slight advantage nationally and won three of them outright and I believe he won four(you know which one I mean). So a candidate who wins enough states to win without Ohio and Florida has probably won them anyway.

Annexing Virginia changes the entire dynamic. Suddenly you can lose both Florida and Ohio, and need only one among Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado to hit 270, as long as Kerry's states are maintained, admittedly hardly a cinch when you consider how close states like Wisconsin and New Hampshire were.

George Allen is much more possible as the GOP nominee that many here like to concede. The other side handicaps well and knows the math. A nominee from Virginia or Florida is strategically smart and they have both Allen and Jeb to choose from. Jeb would be up the list if GW were popular but obviously plummets now.

I still think Florida is more of a possibility for our base than Ohio, especially long term. I don't pretend to know the demographic specifics as well as many here, but it seems to me Ohioans are basically fed up with a lousy state economy and performance of GOP elected officials. That is hardly foundational in our behalf. I don't see any evidence of population shift in our favor such as northern Virginia or segments of Colorado. Once we get to an election in which the Florida state economy (relative boom in 2004) and Ohio state economy are even with the nation and with each other, I think we'll pull a comparatively superior number in Florida.

and your name is not Mark Warner, then you've pretty much swept the nation with well over 300 EVs, making a discussion like this moot.

Nice post. That's so true.

If we change the dynamics. If we focus on the west and midwest, we could make Florida and Ohio irrelevant. If we can finally focus on the issues -- we'll win a whole lot more states than that.

We need to stop using Diebold as an excuse. The power for change is in our hands.

During the aftermath of the 2004 elections, there was a map floating around that showed that the population shift from the blue states to the red states would be captured in the 2010 census and cause about 20 blue state electoral votes to be allocated to the red states.

Enjoy your stay.

...but, we can definitaly win without Florida. Actually, I think we have to because Florida seems to be unable to run an honest election. (Sorry, Florida...just saying.)

While I think it is possible to win without FL and OH (or even without FL or OH), I think it would be a very weak strategy indeed to write them off. The odds of winning without them are way too slim to base a campaign plan around.

I see NM, CO, LA, AK, OK, SC, even AZ voting blue