Realigning The Map?

The level of unrealisticality depends largely on who controls the voting machines. If it's the same people as in 2004 Warren County, OH, then it's not so realistic. Just tellin' you how it is...realistically.

A huge increase in Af/Am participation would be a major benefit to the country as well as the Democratic Party. I am thinking of Jesse Jackson's speech in 1984, David & Goliath, unregistered blacks and young people as rocks left laying on the ground, unused weapons available for the progressive coalition. If you can find it, see it.

I am curious to know more about the new Af/Am voters, if I may be allowed to use the term new for the sake of discussion. More specifically, I'd like to know the demographics on income, education, marital status, employment, etc. And I'd like to know their policy priorities.

MO is another one that is trending purple, at least.

Oliver,
I know everyone in this election is righting off a Democrat winning a southern state but this is the year that happens. I think some republicans would vote for Obama over some candidates. Now, to temper my statement, I will be suprised if we win one state but I don't think that it is out of reach. I think right now Obama beats most of the republican field but I am a supporter.

MO has been purple for a long time - it's just now it's a bit more blue than it used to be.

Important to note - there will be no incumbent governor this year - again. The person who lost the last governor's race is now in the Senate, the current governor isn't running, and the current governor was Secretary of State in '04. Current SOS is Robin Carnahan. It just has to be better.

"I know everyone in this election is righting off a Democrat winning a southern state..."

Excuse me? I've been saying that Clinton can turn the entire south purple and with her money advantage, she can win a few of them.

The advantage Clinton has over Obama is she can convince enough moderate Republican women to vote for her to flip a couple of close states. Obama needs to convince more African-Americans to vote, which is a lot more difficult. If he can get the participation rate up, then he can win.

(On a side note, if Ron Paul does run as a third party, I don't see how the Republicans can win. He will draw enough support regardless of the Republican candidate to sink them. With Huckabee, he will take the less religious; with Romney, he will take the more religious; with Giuliani, he will take the social conservatives; and with McCain, he won't take as much, but just enough.

"I know everyone in this election is righting off a Democrat winning a southern state..."

Excuse me? I've been saying that Clinton can turn the entire south purple and with her money advantage, she can win a few of them.

The advantage Clinton has over Obama is she can convince enough moderate Republican women to vote for her to flip a couple of close states. Obama needs to convince more African-Americans to vote, which is a lot more difficult. If he can get the participation rate up, then he can win.

(On a side note, if Ron Paul does run as a third party, I don't see how the Republicans can win. He will draw enough support regardless of the Republican candidate to sink them. With Huckabee, he will take the less religious; with Romney, he will take the more religious; with Giuliani, he will take the social conservatives; and with McCain, he won't take as much, but just enough.

The advantage Clinton has over Obama is she can convince enough moderate Republican women to vote for her to flip a couple of close states. Obama needs to convince more African-Americans to vote, which is a lot more difficult.

I totally disagree. I think both things are difficult, but I think Obama turning out more black voters is a lot more realistic than white Republican men turning out for Sen. Clinton.

OW: "I totally disagree. I think both things are difficult, but I think Obama turning out more black voters is a lot more realistic than white Republican men turning out for Sen. Clinton."

Here's the thing. Obama has to convince someone to do something he or she has never done, which is a difficult thing to do. (Granted, he is doing this, thank god.) Each time he does this, the Democrats get a net gain of 1 vote.

Clinton merely has to has someone already standing in the voting booth to say, "Even though I'm a Republican, I think it is time for a woman president." Each time she does this, Democrats get a net gain of 2 votes. So while it might be more difficult to convince moderate Republican women to switch, each switch is twice as effective. She would only need to convince 1 in 50 to win Iowa and New Mexico.

Also, there is no net difference in electability between the two. None. I don't think I've seen a poll that shows either of them performing better than the other in head-to-head match ups, at least not outside the margin or error, and, depending on the poll, Obama or Clinton do better against the exact same Republican opponent.

(In fact, Edwards could win against all four Republicans with equal ease as Obama and Clinton. The Democrats have a really strong line up this year. On the other hand, it's McCain or a lose for Republicans.)

Oliver, you may even be understating the case for Ohio for two reasons: their economy is in a shambles more than the average purple state's and their GOP machine got massacred end-of-The-Godfather-Part-I-or-II-take-your-pick style. Culturally they are more conservative than Maryland but their GOP machine may be just as ineffective this round due to miserable morale and catastrophic losses at the top of the machine.

I think it would be fairly naive to think that Democrats can flip all 3 (NV, CO, VA). They could flip one, but it'd take a lot of work. Work that doesn't go into flipping the others.

Also, I don't think Arkansaians hold the Clintons as fondly as you think they do. His post-presidency has been about NY, NY. Not so much with the Ozarks (the Library notwithstanding).

That said, I'd rather be playing with the Dem's Electoral math, if not their candidates.

Still, polls this far out always give Dems a built-in 5-7% advantage (see 2004). Should Hillary be the nominee, you'll see the 90's Greatest Hits relived all over again. And I imagine the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is just dying to "define" Barack to the millions of folks who haven't tuned in yet.

The VRWC has tried already to "define" Barack using the most ridiculous attacks imaginable. Why should Americans believe anything they say, even if true, after months of "Barack is a terrorist sleeper agent programmed when he was a boy in Indonesia"?

"Also, I don't think Arkansaians hold the Clintons as fondly as you think they do."

What you think means very little. Check out her poll numbers in the state.

"Should Hillary be the nominee, you'll see the 90's Greatest Hits relived all over again."

And the electorate will be reminded that things were a lot better under Bill Clinton than under George Bush. This will hurt the GOP a lot more than it will hurt Hillary Clinton.

"And I imagine the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is just dying to "define" Barack to the millions of folks who haven't tuned in yet."

And they will go over the top and there will be dozens of Macaca Moments played and replayed on national TV.

The VRWC has tried already to "define" Barack using the most ridiculous attacks imaginable.

Right... we're gonna use our choice primo stuff in January. You must be kidding me. (just like I'm positive your side hasn't even begun to release the REALLY JUICY dirt on McCain, Romney, Guiliani et.al.)

I should add about MO, that the P-D poll has all three Dems beating all four Repubs in every possible matchup.

"(just like I'm positive your side hasn't even begun to release the REALLY JUICY dirt on McCain, Romney, Guiliani et.al.)"

We don't have to. Your side is doing it.

Any polls taken at this point regarding the general election are meaningless because there are no actually nominees as of yet.

But the fact is, the Democrats will have a better chance of winning should they nominate Barack Obama. The GOP base is listless right now, but should Hillary get the nomination you can bet that turnout will be very high as she is a polarizing figure (that's not a knock on her, it's just a fact so don't froth. Let me put it this way: If Hillary gets the nomination, I don't care who represents the GOP - that person will get my vote. But the only candidate in the GOP that would consider over Barack Obama is John McCain and even that isn't a given).

While policy-wise, Hillary and Obama are not all that far apart, Obama has more appeal to independents because he represents something new and fresh. He would definitely increase turnout amongst black voters. I've told people I am considering voting for him because Washington DC needs a serious shakeup and a win by Obama would accomplish that. He was born in 1961, so while he's technically still a baby-boomer, he's not part of the "anti-establishment" culture that still wants to protest the Vietnam war and reminisces about the era whenever a Bob Dylan song is played on the radio.

"The GOP base is listless right now, but should Hillary get the nomination you can bet that turnout will be very high as she is a polarizing figure"

Polls don't support that. Why she has high negatives, she also has the highest core support. Also, the people that hate Hillary Clinton the most are hardcore Republicans who won't vote for her regardless.

On the other hand, McCain, Giuliani, Romney, and Huckabee all piss off at least one portion of the Republican core, and since Ron Paul is going to run as a third party, they will all lose more votes than Hillary would.

Granted, this final point is pretty much true of Obama and Edwards. There is no significant difference in electability between the top three Democrats.

(For the GOP its McCain or no one.)

"While policy-wise, Hillary and Obama are not all that far apart, Obama has more appeal to independents because he represents something new and fresh."

This is true. I have no doubt he would pull more Independents, but polls have him not getting as much support among Democrats as Clinton. (Both pull in more than 90%, I think. The number is huge.)

I think it would be fairly naive to think that Democrats can flip all 3 (NV, CO, VA). They could flip one, but it'd take a lot of work.
Why bother? The republicans are doing it all for us so well.