The 09 (4.00 / 1)

governors race and also their Attorney General's and Lt. Governor's race are critically important. If we can hold onto the governors mansion that would be really fantastic. I think Deeds is probably the strongest candidate but as long as it's not McAwful I think we've got a good shot.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

---

by: Populista @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 18:47:22 PM UTC

Are you acounting for the EV losses... (0.00 / 0)

...in the currently blue states due to the 2010 census?  

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

---

by: lord_mike @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 18:49:51 PM UTC

yes he is (0.00 / 0)

The first sentence and link.


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 18:51:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes (0.00 / 0)

Re-read the first sentence and check out the links there.

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 18:51:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't think (0.00 / 0)

Florida is going to get two additional seats in 2010. Population growth is slowing greatly here.

---

by: fladem @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 19:11:48 PM UTC

What better case (0.00 / 0)

for verified voting legislation?

A strong majority of Virginia voters cast ballots on paperless direct-recording electronic systems.

In 2007, the Legislature enacted a law which bans the future purchase of DREs of any kind, but the jurisdictions now using them can keep them for "the rest of their useful life." With state budgets tight, there may not be many voting system switches in Virginia unless federal legislation requires and funds new equipment.

Using National Conference of State Legislatures reapportionment projections (see slide 16 of their 2008 election analysis), and assuming the Maryland, Tennessee, and New Jersey switch to verifiable systems by 2012, as their statutes now require, I see at least 132 electoral votes determined by paperless e-ballots in 2012: Delaware (3 EVs post-reapportionment),  Georgia (16), Louisiana (8), and South Carolina (9) will likely still have statewide paperless e-voting.  Indiana (11), Kansas (6),  Kentucky (8), Pennsylvania (20), texas (38), Virginia (13) will likely be majority paperless. See Verified Voting's national map for more detail. Kentucky may very well move toward paper ballots; the Republican SoS, Trey Greyson, has been urging counties to convert from DREs, but 124 insecure, unverifiable electoral votes is 124 too many.

Having the Presidential election come down to votes cast on insecure, unreliable paperless electronic systems would be heartbreaking for the supporters of whoever loses (and in Virginia, verified voting advocacy has a little more of a Republican flavor than a Democratic one; it's not a partisan issue), and would - legitimately - shake confidence in our democracy. The country dodged this bullet in 2008. We may not be so lucky again.

---

by: Midwest Millian @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 19:21:45 PM UTC

Dr Dean (4.00 / 1)

Where are you?

The focus for the next four years should be extending the 50 state strategy. We should be hammering away at OH and FL. We should also beat up on AZ and IN. I would also pour money and effort into IA, MO, ID and MT.

Dr Dean was right about taking the fight to them. Make them be forced to defend and spend money where they have always thought themselves safe.

Build a progressive voice and a network to use it. Get feet on the streets in these red states. Develop a progressive leadership that talks about real family values. The value of a government that helps grow the middle class. The value of a government that gives hands-up and not hand outs. The value of a government that doesn't promote corporate welfare and promotes the working class, the middle class. The values of the Democrats. Values of progress.

The key is what Dr Dean fought for at the DNC, feet on the street. Neighbors talking to their neighbors about how Democratic policies help working families. Active and involved people in these red states working on developing a leadership path for Democrats to take city councils, take state assembly and state senate seats and then take the House and Senate seats.

We need to build a bench in these states and then we can go to that bench for leaders. We have four years. We need to continue to push Dr Deans vision. If we do, by 2012 we will have four or more of these states in the tossup column. If we don't we will be back to playing defense no mater what happens on the national stage.
 

---

by: met00 @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 19:23:58 PM UTC

So to be clear... (4.00 / 1)

This map isn't really a look at the 2012 campaign, as it would seemingly substantially handicap the Republicans since the national "PVI" is something like +7 D now (I know that doesn't really make sense as far as the term is defined, but I'm just saying that there is a national pro-D shift in the national electorate).  In other words, your map handicaps Republicans by assuming that they make up the same share of the electorate as Democrats, but that doesn't seem to be the case any more.

Unless I'm misunderstanding something here.

---

by: leshrac55 @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 19:55:32 PM UTC

Yeah, given a 7-point swing, (0.00 / 0)

Missouri, Indiana, and Montana should be at least competitive, as well as NC, FL, etc. What reason is there to believe that Obama will fall back so sharply in states that he was strong in this time around, when after 4 years, most incumbent presidents run better than in their inaugural campaigns (think Nixon, Reagan, Clinton)? This is a pretty pessimistic map, imo, and should only be valid given a more screwup by Obama or the Dems sometime btwn now and then.

---

by: nautilus1700 @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 20:57:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's the only meaningful map (0.00 / 0)

If Obama is 7 points ahead in the polls, he cannot possibly lose. Handicapping it so that Democrats and Republicans perform evenly tells you where the pivot of the electorate is.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 23:55:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Pretty good map actually (0.00 / 0)

I like our chances in both Colorado and Virginia, even if the popular vote is dead even.  Colorado we won by a full 9%, and Virginia is moving so rapidly Democratic that by 2012 I expect its PVI to be even more favorable.  It's going to be a tall order for any Republican to beat Obama in 2012.

---

by: Skaje @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 19:57:06 PM UTC

Arizona. (4.00 / 1)

I know that looking beyond the numbers is not what you were trying to do in this post.  But to do so in a quick and dirty way:

Ohio and Florida I think will move with the national mood, whatever that happens to be.  Hopefully that means they put the election away for us early, but who knows what the next four years will bring.

The Virginia of 2012 though is Arizona.  By "Virginia of 2012" I mean the state whose demographic changes give it a substantially different trajectory than the national mood alone would predict.  NoVa plus the black vote produced Virginia, and California emigrants plus the Hispanic vote and the removal of the McCain effect should move Arizona many more points towards us than the national mood would indicate.  Arizona is the state that can be massively shifted with real and early organizing work -- or, failing that, late and focused campaign work, a la Indiana this cycle.

That means that the Arizona governors race in 2010 should get as much attention from us as the Virginia governors race in 2009.  Arizona is another big state (10 EVs now, 12 after reapportionment) that makes the Republican math very very difficult.

Eventually we get to look at Texas, though that's still a ways off.  We need to know if conservative ideology has succeeded in reproducing itself in the next generation of white Texans.  If there's any weakening in the white vote, then that plus the growing minority votes should unlock the state.  So is Texas more like Colorado, where whites have opened up to Democrats, or Georgia, where whites have gone even more firmly Republican?  It will be interesting to find out.  And obviously, what the parties actually do in the next eight years will matter too.

But for now, I want to draw attention to Arizona.  It's the Colorado/Virginia of the next cycle.

(Incidentally, for those who haven't seen the argument before, Obama won this election in the southwest.  If you stack up the victory margins in the various states, and then start eroding them by a point and then another and then another, then after Florida and Ohio and even Virginia have hypothetically fallen to McCain, it's the Colorado-Nevada-NewMexico trio that is still Obama and that delivers him the 270th vote.  He carried those states by 9+ points.  The other swings states he carried by 3-7.  The Latino vote locked this election down; Ohio and Florida and even Virginia turned out to be gravy.  As a natural part of this southwest bloc, Arizona deserves attention because it can be a long-term part of our electoral coalition.)

---

by: texas dem @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 20:18:35 PM UTC

Arizona (0.00 / 0)

Arizona, of course, also had a McCain home-state effect. If you look at every state bordering AZ - CA, NV, UT, CO, NM - they all moved toward the Democrats by 14 to 17 points from the 2004 to 2008 presidential election. If that had been the case in Arizona as well, Obama would have won the state by 2-5 points - about in the same ballpark as Florida or Ohio.

---

by: Chachy @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 20:30:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Arizona has different demographics (0.00 / 0)

that other southwest states, including a huge block of older white conservatives in Mesa and around Phoenix that even out minority voters elsewhere in the state. Not saying it won't be competitive, but it will be harder to flip than CO and NV were.  

---

by: nautilus1700 @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 20:59:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

even before inauguration. (0.00 / 0)

I find it a little sick that we are already looking at 2012 even before Obama has officially been inaugurated for his term.  I just have to lay that out there first.

Also in my home state of Minnesota, there is still a chance we could save our potential lost seat.  But besides losing a vote in the presidential election, if we lost a seat, the silver lining is that Michelle Bauchman could lose her seat if we redistrict her area right.

---

by: rosevilledem @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 04:48:41 AM UTC

the National Popular Vote bill (0.00 / 0)

we shouldn't have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral vote -- that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Because of state-by-state enacted rules for winner-take-all awarding of their electoral votes, recent candidates with limited funds have concentrated their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. In 2004 two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential election.

Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes-- 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote...

---

by: mvymvy @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 17:27:53 PM UTC