Author
|
Topic: Battleground states in the US election
|
St. Paul's Progressive
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12621
|
posted 27 May 2008 02:33 PM
I think we can assume safely that Barack Obama will be the Democratic candidate for the White House. I'm actually surprised how well McCain is doing in the polls - but I think it's partly because the Democrats are divided and once they're united behind a nominee things will improve. I also find it hard to imagine Obama losing any states that Kerry took in 2004, such as Pennsylvania.The big prizes are of course Ohio and Florida. Ohio seems to be an easier one to take - Kerry lost there by about 100,000 votes and it is a rust belt state where McCain's economic policies won't be popular with the recession. The Democrats lost Florida by 400,000 votes and they face two problems there (excluding possible electoral fraud!): the very popular and charismatic governor of Florida is a top-tier running mate for McCain (I'd be more concerned about him than Mitt Romney) and Obama is having a bit of trouble with American Jews - where there's a (false) perception that he is anti-Israel. I know McCain won't win the Jewish vote - but if Obama only gets 65-70% instead of the usual 75-80% that could make a difference in Florida. In terms of other states, I think the old Democratic stronghold of West Virginia can be written off as there is a lot of anti-Black sentiment there. The same is true of Kentucky. I also have my doubts that Obama can take any of the South, with the exception of Florida. They actually say Virginia is a swing state but I have my doubts. I think the Democrats do however have a good chance of winning Iowa, New Mexico and Nevada - states they narrowly lost last time, as well as Colorado. [ 27 May 2008: Message edited by: St. Paul's Progressive ]
From: Toronto | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 28 May 2008 08:10 AM
quote: Originally posted by Blairza: gas is 4$+ McCain is toast
It was as high as $5.98CDN/"imperial" gallon in this part of Canada. And our stoogeocrats don't feel any less obligated to be stoogey. It's a good thing Canadians have to pay a lot more for our own stuff while massive amounts of oil and windfall profits are siphoned off to corporate America and beyond? A CIBC economist said recently that when oil hits $150/bbl, transportation costs will be about equal to trade tariffs of the 1970's, the way it was before the capitalist globalization agenda. Low wage, low worker's rights zones like Mexico could gain back some of those jobs they lost to countries like China with one-tenth the labour costs. Globalization is reversible [ 28 May 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Robo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4168
|
posted 28 May 2008 02:01 PM
quote: Originally posted by Lord Palmerston: Interesting how this time around Virginia is more likely to go Democrat than West Virginia is.
It's a reflection of how what it means to be "progressive" has changed in the last three decades. The US is divided much more over cultural issues today than it was around economic issues in 1976 (as a comparator). West Virginia liked economic progressivenessin 1976, but wasn't so keen on cultural progressiveness when it mattered less. Today, while West Virginia is probably still receptive to what passes for economic progressivesness in the US today, it is strongly overshadowed by the state's rejection of what passes for cultural progressiveness in the US broadly. A friend of mine did a really cool map of the American Electoral College results, comparing the 2000 and 1976 elections. When borken down into "2 by 2" cells split along which state voted for which presidential candidate, the US split into almost equal quarters for each of the following (with my "titles" following): (1) Carter and Gore (e.g. Massachusetts, New York, Minnesota) -- "long-term Democratic" (2) Ford and Bush (e.g. Indiana, Kansas, and Utah) -- "long-term Republican" (3) Carter and Bush (e.g. Georgia, West Virginia, and Texas) -- "economically progressive, culturally conservative" (4) Ford and Gore (e.g. California, Illinois, and Vermont) -- "economically conservative, culturally progressive" There was a time, not too long ago, in which Republicans comfortably won California while West Virginia and South Dakota were toss-up states. That time is gone.
From: East York | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4168
|
posted 29 May 2008 09:03 PM
quote: Originally posted by Malcolm French, APR: Interesting breakdown, and I'd like to see the details.
OK then: Carter and Gore Delaware Dist of Columbia Hawaii Maryland Massachusetts Minnesota New York Pennsylvania Rhode Island Wisconsin Ford and Bush Alaska Arizona Colorado Idaho Indiana Kansas Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire North Dakota Oklahoma South Dakota Utah Virginia Wyoming Carter and Bush Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi Missouri North Carolina Ohio South Carolina Tennessee Texas West Virginia Ford and Gore Vermont California Connecticut Illinois Iowa Maine Michigan New Jersey New Mexico Oregon Washington
From: East York | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674
|
posted 09 July 2008 08:24 AM
Weird things are happening in Montana and Alaska. quote: Barack Obama is leading John McCain by five percentage points in Montana. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the state shows Obama attracting 48% of the vote while McCain earns 43%. In April, the numbers were reversed with McCain leading 48% to 43%. That was before Obama clinched the Democratic nomination and defeated Hillary Clinton by fifteen points in Montana. Against McCain, Obama leads among Montana voters under 50, including a twenty-seven point lead among voters under 30.
quote: The math is pretty simple. Only 311,808 Alaskans voted for president in 2004 -- meaning that Bush's 25-point margin of victory represented a mere 80,000 raw votes. And Obama is already outperforming Kerry and Gore on the ground, trailing McCain by a mere four percent in the latest Rasmussen poll. If you assume that turnout will hold steady, that translates to a deficit of about 12,500 ballots. Plus there's the added bonus (as in Georgia) of Bob Barr, whose Libertarian bid should resonate in a rugged, laissez-faire state that's famously fond of third-party candidates. (In 2000, Ralph Nader hit double digits in Alaska--and nowhere else.) From the Anchorage Daily News: Democrat Barack Obama could be coming to Alaska to campaign as part of his effort to win a state that hasn't chosen a Democrat for president since 1964. "That is the plan -- we are pretty sure he's going to come at the end of the summer," said Kat Pustay, who was named Wednesday as Obama's Alaska director. Obama is opening a campaign office in Anchorage with paid staff, although Pustay said she didn't know yet just how big the operation will be here. "The campaign in Chicago is saying this is a battleground state so we're going to get resources," she said.
From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|