Which Southern states do the Dems have the best/worst chances of winning in 2004?

Great Debates
1

And feel free to expand the discussion to the other GOP strongholds, the Plains and Rocky Mountain states. But we were talking about specifically Southern states in the Kerry’s veep thread, and it seemed to deserve its own.

I’ve got some strong thoughts about Virginia, because that’s where I’ve lived most of my life, and even now that I’m across the river in MD, I think of myself as a Virginia expat, not a Marylander. One or two people in the other thread suggested that Virginia is within reach for the Dems. I strongly disagree.

Virginia was within reach - in 1992. The Three Good Governors (Robb, Baliles, Wilder, 1981-93) had taken Virginia from being a very conservative place to one that was fairly comfortable with its homegrown moderate Democratic party. I’m convinced to this day that Clinton and Gore could have taken Virginia in 1992 if they’d tried. And they should have, since that would have strengthened Virginia’s ties to the Democrats, and perhaps made George Allen’s gubernatorial win in 1993 less likely. (Allen’s win is seen by many as a precursor of the GOP sweep in 1994.)

But ever since 1993, Virginia’s been moving rightward again. I think Warner’s finally stopped that movement, but he hasn’t exactly reversed it yet that I can see. I don’t see Virginia going Dem in 2004 unless Kerry wins in a landslide.

I think Virginia will go Dem before SC, Alabama, and Mississippi do, but that isn’t saying a whole lot. I’d say FL (half South, half not), GA, NC, TN, LA, KY, and Arkansas are all better pickings for the Dems this year than VA.

Note: that’s “better pickings than VA”. I didn’t say “good pickings”. Just to be clear.

2

I’ll chime in with my view of the northern Rocky Mountain states. Utah, Idaho, Montana and my own home state of Wyoming are not very likely, even less likely than any Southern state. Although Wyoming has a Democrat in the Governor’s office, he is fairly conservative (for a Democrat). The Democratic Party here is small and fairly quiet. (My Mom and Dad are fairly solid “Union Democrats”, and they will be the first to tell you that you can hold a Democratic Party meeting in their area in a clothes closet.)

Colorado is a different story, as I understand the Democratic Party there is better organized and better at convincing the less-rural population. So I would say Colorado is the best bet out here, followed probably by Montana (which, I would say, doesn’t really have a snowball’s chance of going on the D side.) I can’t speak for the Southern Rockies.

3

Here’s a Tennessean piping up for Louisiana’s winnability. I understand that Gore lost LA by something like 46-54% last time. But now Democrats hold every statewide elected office with the exception of the Secretary of State, and a majority of congressmen. If Kerry had Edwards as a running mate, and sent Clinton down there pretty regularly, I think it would be winnable.

4

For western states, the Dem nominee would have to screw up mightily to lose Washington, Oregon, California, and Hawaii. I agree that for mountain states Montana, Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming, as well as Alaska, are all hopeless for the dems. Colorado is a real long shot. However, Nevada was twice a Clinton state, and though Bush won there in 2000, it could support a democrat again (I’m from Nevada, though I now live in WA). Nevada only gets 4 electoral votes, so who knows whether any candidate will care much about campaigning there, but if the race is going to be as close as all evidence suggestions, those 4 votes might be worth something. Plus Bush pissed off a lot of Nevadans by pronouncing the name of the state incorrectly the one time he visited there. :stuck_out_tongue:

I suspect Arizona is out of reach for democrats, but I could well be wrong. There are a lot seniors there who are outraged with the Iraq war (my grandfather, a WW2 vet among them) and the recent medicare debacle, and many repubs in AZ are of the moderate type. New Mexico is a probable state for the democratic nominee.

Of the plains states, probably none of them will go for a democrat anytime soon.

Frankly, of the states that went for Gore in 2000, in don’t see any of them going for Bush this time around.

Of the states that went for Bush, I think the following could well be won by a democrat in 2004: Nevada, Arizona, New Hampshire, Ohio, Missouri, West Virginia, and Florida; with Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Tennessee as long shots if the nominee picks a Southern running mate. With the Southern states, the key issue is minority voter turnout and how many of the potential minority votes are illegally disenfranchised, as so many blacks were in Florida in 2000. All of the other Southern states went so big for Bush in 2000 I can’t imagine any serious inroads being made by a democrat.

5

Of the Southern states (which, in my mind, are the 11 that left the Union during the Civil War), listed in (roughly) west-to-east order:

Texas: Not a snowball’s chance in Hell.

Arkansas: Possible, but not that likely.

Louisiana: The Dems have a very good chance of carrying this state.

Mississippi: Don’t bother.

Tennessee: A probable state. The Dems retook the Governorship in 2002.

Alabama: Even less of a chance than Texas.

Georgia: Not very likely. The state’s been trending Republican, and the fact that the Reps will almost certain win the open Senate seat doesn’t help matters much.

Florida: Of all the Southern states, this came closest to voting for Gore in 2000*, and should provide the Democratic nominee with their largest percentage.

South Carolina: Solidly Republican.

North Carolina: Not very likely, even if Edwards is the VP nominee.

Virginia: It was the only Southern state to support Ford in 1976. Need I say more?

*: Don’t hijack this thread on this.