Political Notes #9

California Expert Software

Truth is Everything

A PROGRESSIVE WIN IN 2004

DIFFERENT COLORED GLASSES

Before reading on, spend a little time (maybe a lot of time) on this electoral analysis in CommonWealth:

This was brought to my attention in DailyKos by DavidNYC. Check out DailyKos, where this analysis has been thoroughly and heatedly discussed.

Do your own electoral vote count at this "Edwards for Prez" site:

Electoral Calculator

I also post occasionally to my Diary on DailyKos.

The Electors

I begin by conceding much. George W Bush is almost certain to win the Confederate South, most of the Border States and much of the Louisiana Territory. Here are the 2004 Red States:

AK (3) ID (4) MT (3) WY (3) ND (3) SD(3) UT (5) CO (9) NE (5) KS (6) OK (7) TX (34) IN (11) KY (8) TN (11) MS (6) AL (9) GA (15) NC (15) SC (8) VA (13) WV (5) NH (4) ME(4)

That's a total of 194 electoral votes. Now, we add to that States leaning Republican or toward Bush:

FL (27) LA (9) NV (5) AZ (10) MO (11) OH (20)

That's 82 votes more, for a total of 276 electoral votes, and a WIN. (270 wins.)

Against that, Democrats are very likely to win these States:

CA (55) WA (11) IL (21) WI (10) MI (17) NY (31) NJ (15) DE (3) MD (10) DC (3) MA (12) CT (7) RI (4) VT (3) HI (4)

No matter who is the nominee, that is 206 electoral votes. Assuming Dr Dean is the nominee, these States lean Democrat:

OR (7) NM (5) PA (21)

For a total of 239 electoral votes. That leaves the contestable States:

MN (10) IA (7) AR (6)

with 23 electoral votes.

This or this or ?

Looking at this another way, the "leaning" States could be wooed to one side or another. Pennsylvania, for example, is torn between the East and West. Urban western Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh) is more like Northern Ohio than Philadelphia. If the steel industry feels abandoned by Bush, Pennsylvania along with Ohio and West Virginia could fall into the Democratic column. Or, Pennsylvania could go with Bush. A lot depends on unforeseeable factors.

What Sullivan in "Beyond Red and Blue" calls the Big River States could swing either way, including Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri and Arkansas. The Republicans have a recent advantage there, but may they may not hold on. These States are heavily involved in foreign trade, because agricultural products are shipped to the world via the Mississippi river. Agricultural subsidies and open markets are big issues there. As Sullivan points out, these States don't vote far from the middle in most elections, so small differences in party orientation can have big results.

In the West, the Sullivan's Sagebrush region occupies eastern Oregon, Nevada, Arizona and part of New Mexico. Republicans have been winning the Sagebrush areas of those States for a long time. I think the clue to this area is Oregon, which is split down the middle. The Williamette Valley and some of the Coast is liberal and Democrat, through and through; except for Springfield, which is hard ultra-right. It's very unlikely Oregon's hard-core right will ever vote Democratic, which they regularly denounce as Communistic or Socialistic (see local newspapers). So, it comes down to holding the line in the urban, pro-Democrat areas and preventing any Republican pickups. I think this is essentially the situation in Nevada and Arizona as well. These States are teeter-tottering on the edge of something, but what?

I note here the ease with which a number of friends have commuted between the great Southwestern desert and Oregon during the last few years. I take this as a sign of some deep, new connection. It used to be Oregonians commuted to Hawaii, but never to California or Washington.

Finally, the South: Florida and Louisiana. These are Bush States, but Florida is more volatile. They might be won by Democrats, but that will depend on factors too complex to discuss here. For example, on today's CNN "CAPITOL GANG," the outcome of the Florida Senatorial election was said to be dependent on whether the Kathleen Harris is the Republican candidate. Louisiana's recent election went Democratic for quintessentially Louisiana reasons ; they cannot be generalized to the Presidential election. I think these States are contestable, but only on an ad hoc basis. Since the outcome is unpredictable, it would be unwise to count on their electoral votes when formulating an electoral strategy.

All in all, there are 142 electoral votes that might be grabbed by either party. That leaves George Bush just 190 he can really count on, whereas Democrats can rely on 202; call it a tie. BUT, if you're a Democrat, it's best to think that King George is going to put the squeeze on all those forsaken places, and work like a donkey.

How To Win

Democrats will surely lose their base if they stop being Democrats. The "base" is those 200 or so electoral votes in the North East, North Central and West Coast. Inspection of the Democratic base shows it is heavily urban, educated and technical, but also poor, immigrant and uneducated. None of these folks accept the Bush, neo-conservative or conservative fare, and will abandon candidates who do.

There are elected Democratic officials, like Senator Lieberman, who have managed to confuse the electorate, so get votes from both sides. That was Clinton's "triangulation" strategy, but it doesn't work anymore. The Bushies have polarized the politically aware. It's us or them.

While progressives can count on the Democratic base, that does win an election. We must win the contested States. In 2004, this falls into 3 categories:

1. States like Florida for which no advance strategy can be formulated. These must be assumed lost, until opportunity knocks. Whatever strategy wins, it will be ad hoc.

2. States like Oregon and Arizona which are undergoing a demographic or cultural transition. The progressive message needs to be tailored in these States to show how our ideas help the emerging majority.

3. States like Pennsylvania and Ohio which are strongly affected by economic and trade issues. There are other States, like the Big River States, that are similarly affected. Progressives need to tailor our economic message to the middle and lower classes of these States.

On a grand scale, this election is necessarily about foreign policy and the US Conquest of Iraq. Democrats can capitalize on the foibles and follies of the Bush Administration. Unless there is a miracle cure in Iraq, the Bushies are likely to be on the defensive about it. While this might weight the election in the Democrats' favor, it won't win it. It will be the carefully crafted local message that counts in the contested States.

While the election is still Bush's to lose, there is good reason to hope and work for a Democratic win.

December 13, 2003

Last update: 11/13/2007