Electoral College Breakdown, Installment Eleven (The Battlegrounds)

various

[SC Swamp Fox]

All I did was put Dales' numbers into an on-line electoral map and them captured the graphic.

Dales has done all the grunt work.

I agree, this will be a useful tool.

[CasearianDaoist]

Your analysis is more in line with my perceptions. I just do not see Bsuh taking Minnesota. These Latte Liberals and the old line "FDR Democrats" will kill him.

[Plutarch]

As for what Bush can do to firm up this region [the Midwest/Northeast]..."

For Kerry, you go over a list of V.P. candidates. There is no reason that Bush could not find a new job for Cheney, and substitute a V.P. candidate who would actually help the ticket generally, or capture a battleground state in particular. Any suggestions or analysis?

(I've been beating the drum for Santorum).

[dpwiener]

Demonstrates the political wisdom--for Kerry--to pick Rendell as running mate.

Rendell is a plausible choice. But if Kerry really, really wants to be President (and he really, really, really, really does), I think he's going to have to roll the dice on the Vice-Presidency. Other people have already suggested John McCain, and I think it would be a brilliant choice for Kerry.

Naming McCain as his VP would add more "Vietnam hero" credentials and create the image of a serious foreign policy team which could be counted on to pursue the War On Terror. It would also be a "Fusion ticket" which could appeal to Independents and moderate Republicans, and would reassure many swing voters after Kerry's heavy left-wing trip through the primaries. The liberal media, which has always loved McCain, would completely swoon over this ticket.

What's the downside for Kerry? Obviously some Democrats would choke at the prospect of putting a pro-war Republican on the ticket. But for the far-left this is an "Anybody But Bush" crusade, and they'll recognize and ultimately accept the political calculus involved. Yes, Ralph Nader will pick up some anti-war votes, but that will be heavily outweighed by all the swing votes that Kerry/McCain will put into play.

Would McCain do it? Why wouldn't he? He has no love for Bush, and this would be his only remaining chance to become President. (Remember, any Vice-President has good chance of eventually ascending to the Presidency. Five of the eleven post-WWII Presidents were former Vice-Presidents.)

[Dales]

It's not going to happen. Cheney will be the nominee.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"at this moment in the campaign the main domestic issue may well be the chronic loss of manufacturing jobs. And if Kerry chooses Rendell as running mate, that will be campaign issue # 1; and it will put these states won by Bush in 2000 in play: Ohio, WV, Kentucky, Tennessee, perhaps others. Plus it would solidify Penn, Mich, NJ, Missouri in the Dem camp, leaving them to spend money in (for them!) less secure states. Of all the potential VPs out there, Rendell is the one who offers the most benefit to a Kerry campaign."

---

I agree that Kerry's best line of attack may be the loss of manufacturing jobs, but couldn't disagree with you more regarding how helpful Rendell would be. I don't think he would help Kerry in any of the states you mentioned except PA and NJ (he would also help in Delaware, which you didn't mention). Rendell is very popular in the Philly metro area, but lost the rest of the state to the GOP gubernatorial candidate and is a DLC-type, in favor of free trade and such. Plus, he had a pretty bad relationship with unions in Philly when he was mayor. Just as Rendell wouldn't help Kerry much in Western PA, he wouldn't help him at all in Ohio or Michigan and much less in Missouri, West Virginia, Tennessee or Kentucky. If Kerry wants to be competitive in those states, he's better off picking Dick Gephardt, although, in all honesty, nothing Kerry does will allow him to carry KY or TN (not that he needs to if he can win the other states you mentioned).

[Remole]

You make a lot of great points, and clearly you know more about the politics on the ground in those battleground states. So thanks much for your insights. But it still seems that, of all the options, Rendell offers the most upside for Kerry. He has the personality, the executive record, the friends in the media, the common-sense approach to politics and getting things done that any Senator, and especially Kerry, will need for ballast. I must admit that I wasn't aware that he had alienated so many union types. If even Rendell can't bring in the blue-collar types, then Kerry is worse off than I thought.

[AuH2ORepublican]

I am not from MN, and you are, so it's presumptuous for me to tell you about the voters of your state, but I'll do it anyhow. : )

I think you're correct that voters in Hennepin County are generally social liberals and economic conservatives, like voters in most close-in suburbs outside the South. But the exurban territory that has been growing like crazy during the past 10-15 years, such as Dakota, Scott, Carver, Wright, Sherburne, Benton, Isanti, Chisago, Anoka and Washington counties (the "Ventura Belt") is not like Hennepin County at all. Most voters there are young, with conservative cultural values, pro-life and pro-gun, and who don't have much use for government. Ventura won big there not because he was a libertarian on social issues, but in spite of the fact that he was a libertarian on social issues (although being pro-gun certainly didn't hurt him there)---if exurban voters in MN were such social liberals, there is no way that ardent pro-lifers Coleman and Pawlenty would have won such large margins there. And St. Cloud is very pro-life, as are the German and Norwegian areas in the NW and even the economically liberal Iron Range. I think Kerry will be killed on abortion and gun control outside of urban areas and close-in suburbs in Hennepin and Ramsey counties (and maybe some close-in suburbs in northern Dakota, southern Anoka and western Washington counties), and that Bush has an excellent shot at becoming the first Republican presidential candidate since Nixon in 1972 to carry MN.

[Clintonfatigued]

Very impressive work. I think that this year, Ohio will be ground zero, not Florida. It's historical record that no Republican has been elected President without carrying Ohio, and it has suffered a lot of job losses lately.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"But it still seems that, of all the options, Rendell offers the most upside for Kerry. He has the personality, the executive record, the friends in the media, the common-sense approach to politics and getting things done that any Senator, and especially Kerry, will need for ballast."

---

You are certainly correct that Rendell has the personality to be a great asset to any campaign. When he was DNC chairman, and later when he appeared on TV, it was difficult for me to dislike him. But he's been governor for less than two years, and being mayor of a city (even one 3 times larger than Vermont : ) is not the type of executive experience one looks for in a president. If Kerry wants executive experience, there's always Governor Vilsack of Iowa (although I don't know how good he'd be in front of the cameras---it's doubtful he'd be as good as Rendell) or Governor Warner of Virginia (who was elected a year before Rendell was and who did very well in that election with the rural and blue-collar voters Kerry needs to attract). But if I were him, I'd go with Gephardt.

If Rendell gets reelected in 2006 (which is likely, since PA governors usually get reelected once and then cough up power to the other party), he will be a fine presidential or VP contender for the Dems in 2008 (assuming Bush wins reelection). Rendell for president and a Southern or border-state Protestant for VP (Rendell is Jewish, and would probably need a Baptist or other Protestant as VP in order to have a chance in West Virginia, Missouri, Ohio, Arkansas and some other states) would be a strong ticket for the RATs. But I don't think it's Rendell's time yet.

[irish guard]

The media....for obvious reasons...largely ignores this fact, with no Joe Lieberman to interest the Jewish vote...how well will the Democrats fare in a largely Republican state?

[Dales]

Thanks.

We'll see how everything goes. Last year the system worked pretty well.

[Dales]

McCain would not do it. He would hate being second fiddle, and as much as we whine about McCain, he is still a lot closer to us than he is to Kerry. His lifetime ACU rating is 84, and Kerry's is 5.

Even if you go with McCain's ratings just over the last 5 years, he is much closer in votes to the 'perfect conservative' than he is to Kerry.

Remember, McCain has already been out campaigning for Bush and against the Democrats. The Democrats love to think that he is one of them, and he does play to them at times, and many conservatives look at him like he is one of them because of it. But he is not one of them, never was, and never will be.

[SC Swamp Fox]

Considering all of the "Bush bashing" the dwarfs and their minions have been doing, Bush is in surprisingly good shape.

I fixed the colors and did a little shading.

[Dales]

Even better! Thanks!

[Dales]

And you made Bush blue. Yes!

[JLS]

Thanks again for all the good work.

I wonder if in your historical comments it would be right to also mention Anderson cutting into Carter's vote in 1980 when analyzing trends in state voting. Although nominally a Republican, his RINO Independent candidacy seemingly hurt Carter much more than Reagan, maybe tipping some states and certainly making the margin in some state different than it would have been without him.

Since you mention the effect of Perot in 1992 and 1996, consistency might be served to mention Anderson in 1980 unless my memory is faulty and that third party try did not affect outcomes or margins.

[ItsMyVoteDammit]

This is an excellent analysis. Please add me to your Ping list. Thanks.

[JLS]

Latest poll on on PA shows it tightening. In case you missed it someone posted it tonight:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1084982/posts

[Lancey Howard]

Great work on this stuff.
I appreciate your efforts.

Regards,
LH