The Hillary Win & Democrat Defeat

That’s not how I see it. You take too much for granted. You tend to think Obama and Clinton’s constituency is frozen in time, the two will continue to be polarizing forces all the way to the general election, all democratic minds locked up forever bound to primary forces, all human wills steadfast from this moment onwards. Yet, it’s not the case. We all know in politics that’s not how things operate. The nature of politics, due to who we are, is to change; it’s one of the essential ingredients in self-hood— and one of the main reasons people tend to find politics so distasteful. So, bearing in mind this is politics and not a photo:

Here’s how Obama gets past the 270 mark:

California, 55
Washington, 11
Oregon, 7
Minnesota, 10
Wisconsin, 10
Michigan, 17
Illinois, 21
Hawaii, 4
Pennsylvania, 21
New York, 31
Massachusetts, 12
Connecticut, 7
Maine, 4
Vermont, 3
Rhode Island, 4
Maryland, 12
District of Colombia, 3
Delaware, 3
New Jersey, 15

The above states are reliably safe for Dems. and give up 248 electorial votes.

Where are the rest?

Conventional wisdom says Ohio; it’s an easier bet than FL. But neither are necessary. Here’s a four state strategy we are looking at due to changing demographics:

New Mexico, 5
Iowa, 7
Colorado, 9
Nevada, 5

26 Electoral Votes come into play here for a grand total of 274.

Florida can be a wash, but Ohio, Virgina, Indiana, Missouri are still real possibilities, too … yet they aren’t even needed to win.

When Billary finally turns to support Obama –and they will, with a passion– the Rust Belt and Appalachia will change; they can become competitive.

The above is a very viable strategy for winning without even bothering excessively with Ohio and FL.

With the change in demographics, political environment, I believe your general election punditry has blinders not considering significant new trending elements: National polling consistently has Obama competitive with McCain; Dem’s have two formidable weapons with the poor economy and Iraq (as polling indicates); the bluing of congress in 2006 still continues as last nite Mississippi’s 1st district fell to Dems–Bush got 62% there in 2004! (weeks earlier this happened with Hastert’s, and LA’s 6th district); a core group for the GOP, the religious right, is not what it used to be; and finally, McCain’s dubious status as a conservative “true believer”.

Your math, therefore, needs time and conditions as further variables necessitate the game that is played is played, not in a vacuum, but in reality.

Let’s take a look at two of Doug’s four state solution, NM and CO.

NM, 2000 & 2004: Problems with vote counting otherwise known as election fraud. The NM Secretary of State’s office counted more votes for Gore in 2000 than the total number of registered voters in heavy Democratic precincts. Also, ballot boxes were found in alleys and streets from heavy Republican precincts – those weren’t counted. Yet, Gore’s “winning” vote advantage wasn’t that significant. Though the Bush campaign could have easily forced a recount in NM, they chose not to … and, not because of the FL problem. In 2004, a similar voter fraud problem was shaping up again. More votes for Kerry in certain heavy Democratic precincts than the total number of registered voters. Bush is able to carry NM because of the Republican GOTV effort.

NM, 2008: Much of the voter and election fraud problems from 2000 and 2004 still remain.

CO, 2000 & 2004: Both times, carried by Bush with comfortable margins. Yet, in both elections, the election problems were centered around heavy Democratic leaning Denver, Boulder, and Pueblo counties. In Denver, it was a case of underestimating the number of ballots needed for the election (especially in 2004) and the inability to properly mark a ballot by voters there (not the FL version). In 2004, Denver was unable to use it electronic voting machines because of “technical reasons” – it was simply booting the machines at 7:00 am and not earlier as required by the instructions with the machines and ill-trained election workers. In Boulder County, both 2000 and 2004, the problem was with electioneering and voter intimidation. The intimidation part was that when a Republican registered showed up to vote, they were “counseled” on how and who to vote for. If you told them to go away, the “counselors” called the police to have them removed for creating a “disturbance.” In Pueblo County (2004), Democratic operatives were calling military spouses, in particular the wives, to vote for Kerry. If they did not, they would make sure their military husband or wife would have “nothing to come home to.” The operatives left the state before they were to be arrested.

CO, 2008: Electronic voting machines in 60 of the state’s 68 counties were decertified by the Secretary of State’s office for failing to install the needed security patches into the machines. The machines, largely provided by Sequoia, were the same brand used by Denver election officials in 2004 and 2006. (BTW, the Denver ’06 general election was even a bigger mess than 2004.) The security patches are necessary in order to protect the validity of each vote cast using those machines. The state legislature wanted a return to a paper ballot, but such a return would recreate a FL 2000-style election mess. Grudgingly, the Democratic-controlled legislature reluctantly appropriated the money so those 60 counties can buy the needed security patches from Sequoia. However, less than 30% of the decertified machines have the security patches installed and none of the 60 counties with decertified machines have reapplied for recertification.

Bottom line: Is this how you’re suppose to win elections, through fraud and intimidation???

Regarding Wisconsin:
Ok, fine, Wisconsin ‘leans’ Democratic. But remember, too, they supported Kerry in 2004 (that says something). Also, these GE polls don’t mean much now; you need to wait until a candidate is selected for the Dems, and a period of time for the public to “know” the candidate. Obama got good numbers out of this state, beating Clinton by 17 points. With 2 Democratic Senators and not neglecting the state it’s still reliably safe.

Regarding Michigan: “In recent years, the state has leaned toward the Democratic Party in national elections. Michigan supported Democrats in the last four presidential elections. In 2004, John Kerry carried the state over George W. Bush, winning Michigan’s 17 electoral votes with 51.2% of the vote. Democrats have won each of the last three, and nine of the last ten, U.S. Senate elections in Michigan. Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, a Democrat, recently won a second term, defeating Republican candidate Dick DeVos. Republican strength is greatest in the western, northern, and rural parts of the state, especially in the Grand Rapids area. Democrats are strongest in the east, especially in Detroit, Ann Arbor, Flint, and Saginaw.” –Wikipedia

I see no one is commenting on the Mississippi special election results as indicative of GOP concern. Doesn’t anyone find the present GOP platform fundamentally flawed to some extent judging from last nites’ event? It potentially opens up important swing states for Democrats and puts the election out of reach for Republicans.

No comments?

“Which could mean the moderate dems who voted for Clinton deciding to cast a vote for McCain. Particularly in states with lots of Regan democrats, like WI and MN.”

It could mean that; “politics” happens, but I don’t think it will.

The problem as I see it in your thinking is you still want more mileage on a tired set of wheels; you have jumped into the way-back machine and want to pivot off your thesis that Regan Dems are they deciding group that will carry the state. I think you are wrong.

The problem with that is they don’t trump the state anymore. When Obama won the state handily he never got, nor is he ever going to get, these older southern baptists; these same people that backlashed against the civil-rights movement and held progressive thought back for decades. Quite franky, he doesn’t need them, either. They are a fading breed in a time of voter transition from a cold war era to newer voter turnout and cultures. Obama is looking to expand into groups like the “creative” class, wiht younger voters, white non-Christians, progressive Christians, Catholics, Latinos and Asians and minorities. It’s his ability get voter turnout that scares Republicans; he’s breaking voter state records, filling stadiums and packing rallies that have no comparison in contemporary politics. In essence, these two states (WI and MN) are turning a deeper blue; that’s their current path. Unless you can see another direction I’m missing, owing to the current past decade’s shift, viability of Obama (from polls) and the troubled GOP platform, things looks good for Obama in these two states and many other states.

The Washington Times reports today that House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said that “his party does not need to change its core principles,” but instead will bank on a “refurbished” message. “It’s a change election,” Boehner admitted, and according to him, only the Republican “brand” needs changing:

(WT) “It’s not that the party’s going to change, it’s what we talk about and how we talk about it,” he said. “You look at the Republican brand name being where it is, let’s be frank about it. Iraq has been very unpopular, right? It’s associated with Republicans. The president’s job approval is somewhere down around 30. Those are the two big issues that hurt the brand.“

How do you change the “brand” on the Iraq war after it’s been tired now for over 2 years?

“No need [to rebrand the Iraq war], the recent spectacular advances due to the surge and malikis robust action against al-Qaida and al-Sadr will change the brand on their own. The party of harry (”the war is lost”) reed will pay a price for rooting against US victory for a long time. In years to come the dems will regret their weakness in the same way they have done since handing over south vietnam to the communists.”

Well, there is a need, according to Boehner; otherwise, the first district of Mississippi would not have been given over to Democrats last night.

Clearly, the traditionally Republican political turf doesn’t acknowledge the “spectacular advances” in Iraq.

This, as many see it, is a significant “republican problem” for the General Election: How do you convince Republicans to vote for a war they have lost all patience with?