babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » Battleground states in the US election

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Battleground states in the US election
St. Paul's Progressive
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12621

posted 27 May 2008 02:33 PM      Profile for St. Paul's Progressive     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 27 May 2008 03:02 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think Virginia is doable. The state's been trending in a Democratic direction. Florida will be a tough go, because there are so many seniors, the group in the electorate Obama has been having the most trouble with. Ohio is a possibility, but Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico have just about as many electoral votes. So Obama could lose Ohio and Florida and still win.

As for McCain doing relatively well, that's not surprising given that the Democrats are still divided.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 27 May 2008 03:12 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Barack certainly has a good chance of beating McCain but I think Hillary has an even better chance of beating McCain. Whereas Obama has a 1.3% lead in a head-to-head matchup with McCain in Ohio (a statistical tie), Clinton leads McCain by a more substantial 8.3%. And, in Florida, while Clinton has a 3.0% lead in a head-to-head matchup with McCain, McCain is actually ahead of Obama by 8.3% in that state.

Obviously, polls will change all over the place but these polls may give some indication of Clinton's and Obama's relative strength in comparison to McCain in those two very key states.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lord Palmerston
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4901

posted 27 May 2008 04:06 PM      Profile for Lord Palmerston     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Interesting how this time around Virginia is more likely to go Democrat than West Virginia is.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 28 May 2008 02:58 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The larger presence of African-Americans in Virginia, plus the growth of Democratic support in northern VA, has made the state a better catch for the Democrats than West Virginia, which has a much smaller AA population, less public service workers, and less of a post-graduate presence.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 28 May 2008 03:01 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
Barack certainly has a good chance of beating McCain but I think Hillary has an even better chance of beating McCain. Whereas Obama has a 1.3% lead in a head-to-head matchup with McCain in Ohio (a statistical tie), Clinton leads McCain by a more substantial 8.3%. And, in Florida, while Clinton has a 3.0% lead in a head-to-head matchup with McCain, McCain is actually ahead of Obama by 8.3% in that state.

Obviously, polls will change all over the place but these polls may give some indication of Clinton's and Obama's relative strength in comparison to McCain in those two very key states.


Yet, in the west, upper midwest, and states like Virginia, Obama does much better against McCain than Clinton does.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Blairza
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15227

posted 28 May 2008 07:01 AM      Profile for Blairza     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
gas is 4$+
McCain is toast

From: Sonoma, California | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 28 May 2008 08:10 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
HUAC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14425

posted 28 May 2008 10:35 AM      Profile for HUAC   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
YEEAAAGGHEEAAAGGGHHH!! (snap)

Damn---and with only five months to go.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged
Robo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4168

posted 28 May 2008 02:01 PM      Profile for Robo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168

posted 28 May 2008 08:47 PM      Profile for Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Interesting breakdown, and I'd like to see the details. There certainly is ample evidence that the Republicans have effectively used social "wedge issues" to get voters in places like West Virginia and Kansas to vote against their own economic interests. There is a book entitled (IIRC) What About Kansas that explores this.

That said, your examples of Georgia and Texas in the Carter / Bush category is likely distorted by the fact that Georgia was Carter's home state and Texas (according to the Bushian narrative) Bush's. Major party candidates rarely lose their home state - Al Gore being a noteworthy exception. Had Gore carried Tennessee, with it's 11 electoral votes, he would have become president regardless of the Florida vote-rigging.


From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Parkdale High Park
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11667

posted 28 May 2008 09:06 PM      Profile for Parkdale High Park     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think California's Republican-ness is somewhat overstated because 5 election cycles since 1960 have featured a Republican nominee from California.

When a non-Californian ran as the GOP nominee...
1964: GOP lost by 18%
1976: GOP won by 2%
1988: GOP won by 3.5% (won election by 8)
1992: GOP lost by 14%
1996: GOP lost by 13%
2000: GOP lost by 12%
2004: GOP lost by 10%

I have seen a number of polls with Obama ahead in CA by 7% (winning the white vote and losing the Hispanic vote, interestingly), so in fact, California may have been trending Republican.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Lord Palmerston
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4901

posted 29 May 2008 09:37 AM      Profile for Lord Palmerston     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
California has solidified into a very Democratic state...if the GOP is competitive there the Dems are in big trouble.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 29 May 2008 11:25 AM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Malcolm French, APR:
There is a book entitled (IIRC) What About Kansas that explores this.

The book you are thinking of is called What's the Matter with Kansas, by Thomas Frank, and it has been quite influential on a number of thinkers in the Democratic Party. The book has also been critiqued, however, a good overview of the critiques can be found on its Wikipedia page.


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Robo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4168

posted 29 May 2008 09:03 PM      Profile for Robo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
scooter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5548

posted 30 May 2008 06:26 AM      Profile for scooter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A battleground?

What's with the use of warfare terminology? Are people going to die? If one party kills/destorys more than the other will they win?


From: High River | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 30 May 2008 06:54 AM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
USA TODAY: "New Swing States Pop Up in '08"
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 30 May 2008 09:39 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The ten states most likely to flip. Seven of the ten were won by Bush last time.

http://tinyurl.com/4oazcx


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 03 June 2008 06:12 AM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Whack Bush! Click repeatedly on any of the hands, you'll feel better...

[ 03 June 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
St. Paul's Progressive
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12621

posted 04 June 2008 11:03 AM      Profile for St. Paul's Progressive     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If the Bob Barr campaign actually takes off, I think one could put Virginia and Georgia in the Democratic column.
From: Toronto | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674

posted 09 July 2008 08:24 AM      Profile for Willowdale Wizard   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca