Democrats Losing the Lease on Their Old Kentucky Home

LA Times ^ | December 30 | John M. Glionna

[UCAL]

Democrats Losing the Lease on Their Old Kentucky Home

.........Democrats once held unquestioned sway in Kentucky. But no more. The state recently elected its first GOP governor in 32 years. The GOP also has made gains from the coal fields in the east to the white-fenced horse stables of suburban Lexington. And this political transformation in Kentucky illustrates the hurdles Democrats will face as they battle to win moderate-to-conservative states in next year's presidential election.........

[UCAL]

I wish this would happen in Connecticut.

[Dems_R_Losers]

Wow, this is such a great article! I am surprised there are no replies on this thread.

Ellen Williams is a friend of mine. I love her quote about Howard Dean. I am LMAO just thinking about the effete Dean campaigning in Kentucky. They can't stand even a faux Southerner like Al Gore.

[Impy]

Think Dean will carry Connecticut? Probably...

[AuH2ORepublican]

"Think Dean will carry Connecticut? Probably..."

---

I think Bush has an excellent chance of carrying Connecticut, since (i) he is still leading Dean and the other RATs in state polls, (ii) as the economy improves there will be less of a reason for suburban voters to vote for the RATs, and (iii) suburban areas swung to the RATs after the Cold War ended because national security became less important in the eyes of voters, but in the post-September 11 world Bush's approach to fighting terrorism will get a lot of these suburban votes back to the GOP fold. But, more importantly, carrying CT will only matter if Bush wants to get 400 electoral votes and fails to carry California.

[UCAL]

Connecticut never matters; Republican Presidential candidates only carry Connecticut as part of a national land slide.

Connecticut is slowly going in the direction of Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Governor Rowland has been a disaster for our Party here. He's let it whither on the vine since he's been in office. I can't wait until the SOB resigns or is impeached.

[Abram]

The Democrat nominee will probably win all of NE states, with an exception of a battleground of NH and maybe one of the congressional seats of ME. NY, PA, MD, DE, NJ are also going to go for the Democrat nominee. This is the case unless Rove and the Bush machine can paint the nominee as an absolute frindge candidate and it is part of the nation-wide landslide. Even then...many of these states will be hard to pick up. We will do well in the south, the mountain states, and many states of the Great Lakes and the midwest. Given the right circumstances...we could take some of the Pacific Coast states, but currently...it looks like we will only carry Alaska...and that is only if we can keep the Senate seat.

[Wonder Warthog]

"This is the case unless Rove and the Bush machine can paint the nominee as an absolute frindge candidate and it is part of the nation-wide landslide."

LOL, if Dean is the nominee, Rove/Bush won't need to much "painting"--Dean has already applied the primer coat and first base coat of nutballness to himself.

[Impy]

I think we can win Oregon, WA and Cali are harder. Do you suggest Dean would win Alaska if Knowles did?

Is Delaware firmly in the rat column now? It took a big rat swing in 2000 but it's always been competitive.


I disagree about PA, we should win that.

[Abram]

AK may be difficult. Although they usually vote R for President...Nader got 10% of the vote there. They have a pretty nasty liberterian streak. Gore did so horribly there because of his stance on guns. Dean's campaign can pull out his past NRA endorsements and fiscal conservative leanings. He may make AK competitve...especially if a lot of the Republican vote either stays home because of the Sen. Lisa M. nepotism appointment or Knowles does pretty strongly. I mention so that AK freepers can keep it on the radar screen. We cannot take for granted any states that we won in 2000 and without Nader on the Green ticket and without federal matching funds that he would have received...a lot of that pull is gone. A lot of Green voters/liberal voters that may have cast their ballots for the Green candidate may cast it for the D candidate instead. Bush is ONLY in the White House because of Nader's candidacy...he pulled enough votes in Florida, NH, Tennessee, and WV to make a difference. TN voted for the native son...WV voted against Gore's environmental claims and anti-gun stances. NH is fickle...and could swing the rest of the way with NE.

DE I believe is pretty solidly in the D column. Locally, we can elect Republicans to the Senate and House, but they are NE/Eastern Republicans that many on FR call RINOs. PA is still a swing state, but with the right candidate...and issues, we could win it. Catholics, Jews, and union voters are voting more with the Republicans than they have in the past several election cycles. Bush's waffling on steel tariffs will hurt him in that state. Also, the Specter/Toomney race will siphon a lot of money that Bush and the Party could be spent on boosting Bush's chances to win the state. I don't think it is a lost cause, but one, like 2000, a battleground state.
OH, because of the economy, and local Republican issues and an unpopular Governor may be an issue.
OR...the economy is really going to hurt Bush's chances. The economy is second only to WA as the worst in the nation right now. Techology bubble burst really hit our region hard. A lot of Republicans that I know in both OR and WA are considering not voting or voting third party because they blame the losses on Bush's economic policy. I have been working overtime to convince them to vote R and let the tax cuts/economic cycle come into play.
I understand that AR, MT, and NV may be in play too. NV because of Yucca Mountain. Sweitzer is running a solid campaign for Governor and has a lot of money. There may be coatails. AR's demographics are changing. A lot of retirees and immigrants. Prescription drugs/Medicare may help...Bush's inroads with Hispanics...but still will be tight. We can make NM competitive again...Bush only lost the state by approximately 400 votes...but once again...that was part of the Nader effect. WI, MI, and MN can also be made competitve.

[Abram]

I don't konw if Dean will be the nominee or not. Gephart's campaign is picking up steam...Clark's early campaign kind of fell on its face, but the Clinton's haven't endorsed anyone yet. There is a lot of infighting. I wonder with all the infighting if some of the current candidates will endorse the final nominee. Dean has the momentum right now and the left is pretty solidly behind him. I am concerned that he may appeal on the surface to Liberal Republicans, moderates, and independents. He seems lot like Clinton without the charisma. That is what got Clinton elected...it was his charisma. It definitely was not his resume or his respect for the ladies.

[Impy]

Actually the Nader vote exceeds Bush's plurality only in Florida and NH. He won a majority in every other state he won except Ohio and Nevada where the Nader vote didn't exceed his plurality.

I really disagree about Alaska. Knowles has a 50/50 shot but no rat has carried the state for President since 1964. Bush got over 58% there, he needn't worry about Alaska at all, especially with Dean and all the other rats being against ANWR drilling.