Comments on A Nation Divided

Clintons blue is purdy.

I think that gaining the support of Democrat strongholds is not the strategy that will work in the general election.

Well...

I wonder how they decided who would be "dark blue" and who would be "light blue". On one hand, it seems like they're implying that Clinton is "bluer" than Obama, but I might be reading too much into the symbolism. They might have had it the other way and just decided that making Obama "dark blue" was too on-the-nose.

I'm trying to come up with some sort of unifying theory to explain the north/south divide in the western half of the country, but honestly, Utah and Colorado are almost indistinguishable from Arizona and New Mexico. All four states are, as far as I can tell, vast stretches of desert that are annoying to drive through.

Puerto Rico should be up there too...it has more delegates than Vermont and Rhode Island combined...

its like a new mason dixon line all across america (with the east all screwy)

Florida and Michigan should NOT be included since their delegates do NOT count and most of the nominees did little campaigning there.

If Florida and Michigan were held TODAY, it would be interested to see what the results would be.

@3 On NM, CO, et al: Nuclear industrial complex, R&D, etc.

It means that all of the light blue states are insignificant. The folks who live in them are the same tools that will go GOP.

@3 hispanos en el suroeste

@6 Yes, the numbers on that map will change when Florida revotes.

@6 thank you! was just about to post that myself. have to add that it's bullshit also b/c hillary snaked her way onto FL and MI's ballots even though the candidates pledged to the democratic party not to campaign. the idea that she's won either, and that these map-makers paint it as such, is ludicrous. leave it to the clintons to be the only campaign to not keep their word on FL and MI.

@6

That's exactly what I came here to say.

I guess Yahoo is in Clinton's camp.

There may be a re-vote in FL and MI, but until then, those states need to be left blank. Hell, Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in MI.

Compare to 2004 red blue map.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004

Are we really going to let people in states that most likely will vote Republican decide who the Dem nominee will be?

Judith all the candidtes were on the ballot in Florida and only Obama ran TV ads there violating the no campaign agreement.

i really don't see why states allow registered republicans to vote in the democrat primaries, and vice versa. i understand letting independents, and think that they should be able to, but invited people to vote in primaries where they aren't even in the party seems to invite vote tampering.

"Are we really going to let people in states that most likely will vote Republican decide who the Dem nominee will be"
Yeah! Let's gitem!

That's why they call it an election, McG.

@12 - you're right. Toss out the votes in Texas and Ohio.

McG, exactly when do you think the Dems should start reaching out to red states? You're all about divisive politics. Do you realize that NC, for example, has had a Democratic Governor and Legislature for at least the last two decades? It's thinking like yours, ignoring and dismissing those states, that leads to GOP victories more often than not.

Florida and Michigan huh? Yeah, the map should have "As provided by the Clinton Campaign"

Gee...looks like Hillary has only been able to win mostly conservative states, except for California and New York (which is her "home" state anyway).

T-R-I-A-N-G-U-L-A-T-I-O-N

I laugh when she attacks Obama about NAFTA...how easily people forget who was in office when it came into being.

At this point she is just being childish and fighting dirty rather than relying on her own laurels.

McG raises a good point; democrats should never try to win states that it wont likely win already.

That should say "Democratic Race", because it's a race within the Democratic Party. Shortening it to "Democrat Party" is always Republican red-baiting. Joe McCarthy started doing that so he could emphasize the last syllable, as "DemocRAT". Modern neo-cons use it disparagingly, implying that the party isn't democratic. That should tell us something about the map-maker's bias.

Also, ditto on the Florida and Michigan "error". Offsides.

The Super Delegates need to balance out Idaho giving 12 delegate net to Obama while HRC only gained 10 delegates in Ohio.

BTW those areas in Texas that voted Dem received more delegates so reducing the influence of red voters is already in place.

#17 - if a state has a Dem legislature, Gov, Senators, and Congressmen but votes Repubo in Presidential elections give them more say than a state like Idaho - a sliding scale would be fine.

Someone should try to pick up some of those white spots from the map.

B.A. we will not win certain states such as SC and GA.

Go down to close states and look at the maps of expeditures and visits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004

@22, re @17: Such a state would have more superdelegates.

McG, it is a self fulfilling prophecy. if one doesnt try to win the south because they dont think they can win the south, will they win the south?

Yes Pox they will - do you have a link that gives the ratios. Idaho still gets them even if they have no elected Dems - state chair, county chairs, etc. so I still hink these small red states have too much say.

Utter nonsense. These aren't winner takes all contests, so displaying these as such is stupid. Ridiculous, I say.

for all those trashing the obvious red state blue state divisions. yes of course we should try to get the red states to vote dem. However, be realistic, many red states simply are not going to go democratic. the democratic party has to focus it resources on the possible ( no matter who is the nominee).

My two cents:

The states that voted for Hillary are mostly the same states that supported Gore and Kerry.

That is: losers.

Notwithstanding a few key differences, Hillary is going to get core dems to vote for her, and nobody else.

BA - I would not expend effort in a state that went 75 - 25 in the last election and is polling 70 - 30.

I would add up my "sure" states and focus my efforts in the most likely states to put the Dems over the top. This would start with more than enough and either narrow or expand depending on how the campaign was going.

The worst thing to do would be to try to win in all fifty and lose the swing states for a lack of effort or expenditures.

Howard Dean's fifty state strategy is the way to expand the party.

LMSW,

what metrics do you have to differentiate the "maybe will vote" blue, from the "never will vote blue" states?

are primaries a good indicator? well when every state is pushing out 2:1+ ratios of democratic voters to republicans i think not. if you're going to say that either candidate's wins in certain states means they have a better shot against their republican opponent in that state then in many cases both candidates would beat the republican in said state.

a 10% win in ohio might mean that hillary might have a better chance there against mccain, but it also might not mean that at all when the general is held.

putting too much faith in these primary results as a guide to state by state electability doesnt make your case stronger.

Polls are iffy. But if they are to be used, then the nationwide polls (for general elections) should cease. Given our current Electoral College system, the only way to determine who is electable is to simultaneously poll all states, and report on the results of each state (separately). Then, they pollsters can do the math and say who carries which state based on the EC.

The meaning gets lost in national polls when a Dem is polling in CA at 65% to 35%, but is losing FL 51% to 49%. Of course, everyone on this site is smart enough to recognize this. However, the MSM only reports nationwide numbers.

You're welcome.

I can't wait for the new version showing the final Texas delegate win by Obama!

Wisconsin, Kerry, 0.38%
Iowa, Bush, 0.67%
New Mexico, Bush, 0.79%
New Hampshire, Kerry, 1.37%
Ohio, Bush, 2.11%
Pennsylvania, Kerry, 2.50%
Nevada, Bush, 2.59%
Michigan, Kerry, 3.42%
Minnesota, Kerry, 3.48%
Oregon, Kerry, 4.16%
Colorado, Bush, 4.67%

Florida, New Mexico, 0.06%
Wisconsin, 0.22%
Iowa, 0.31%
Oregon, 0.44%
New Hampshire, 1.27%
Minnesota, 2.40%
Missouri, 3.34%
Ohio, 3.51%
Nevada, 3.55%
Tennessee, 3.86%
Pennsylvania, 4.17%

Kentucky, 0.96%
Nevada, 1.02%
Georgia, 1.17%
Colorado, 1.37%
Virginia, 1.96%
Arizona, 2.22%
Tennessee, 2.41%
Montana, 2.88%
South Dakota, 3.46%
North Carolina, 4.69%
Texas, 4.93%

Georgia, 0.59%
North Carolina, 0.79%
New Hampshire, 1.22%
Ohio, 1.83%
Florida, 1.89%
Arizona, 1.95%
New Jersey, 2.37%
Montana, 2.51%
Nevada, 2.63%
Kentucky, 3.21%
Texas, 3.48%
South Dakota, 3.52%
Colorado, 4.26%
Wisconsin, 4.35%
Virginia, 4.38%
Louisiana, 4.61%
Tennessee, 4.65%

now which states dont show up on any of those lists?

Why is that map showing Texas as a Clinton state? Obama will end up with the majority of pledged delegates there.

For that matter, Obama is on track to win more delegates than Clinton in Nevada, and they tied in New Hampshire.

how easily people forget who was in office when it came into being.

Ooh, ooh, I know this one. Not Hillary Clinton.

But it's ok. I've heard a few Obama supporters claim that he was in the U.S. Senate in 2002, when he spoke out against the Iraq war.

@21,

Whoever it was also forgot to capitalize "Race." Hello? It's the title of a map, all the words should be capitalized. I think it's more of an ignorance issue vs. a neocon agenda.

what i am trying to illustrate is that there are more close states than just Ohio or Florida in the past 16 years and you cant just think that those are the ones that will either make you or break you.

for instance if kerry had focused on nevada, new mexico, iowa then he would have at least tied. the biggest problem McG is when you paint yourself into a corner by focusing on 1 or 2 states, there is no room for error.

diversify your risk in the election enough that you dont have to win one large state to win the election.

BA, McG doesn't get it. You're wasting your time trying to explain.

McG understands some of the basics but he really doesnt get that you need to play up where you are strong and play down where you are weak.

sure, idaho might not go blue, but in ohio for example, it is a honey pot for resources. why focus all your resources where your opponent is focusing his resources, instead of focusing resources where your opponent isnt and possibly winning?

elections are guerilla warfare, be where your enemy isnt, strike him where he is weak. is mccain weak in the south? strike him there! is he strong in ohio? let him spend more resources fighting for it than you.

@41 advises to pour resources into the South instead of Ohio and ceding Ohio to McCain:

you are officially a total idiot. that is a sure way to lose. The Democrats are not going to win the South. It's not because those whites who voed for Hillary in the primary are racists: the whites who are REALLY racist fled the Demo party in the last 30 years and they are all republican now and the Democrats are lucky to pick off a few southern states.

But we can't afford to not win Ohio.

These maps are stupid. They perpetuate the lie that area equals population, and they perpetuate the lie that it is important who "wins" each state, and they perpetuate the lie that there is some connection between winning or losing a state in the primary and winning or losing it in the general election. These are not just misapprehensions: they are deliberate lies.

The part that matters is below it, and this would be MUCH more useful if it broke out state-by-state how they arrived at those numbers. There are loads of different delegate calculations out there, and no two agree exactly. It would be nice, in order to compare, to see a chart broken out by pledged and superdelegates.

Even if Hillary can seat FL and MI as-is, and even if she can also maintain her current lead in superdelegates, and even if she can also win in the remaining states by fairly large margins, she still loses. Only by persuading the 700-odd undeclared superdelegates to break overwhelmingly for her can she win. And that's not going to happen.

You can disagree with my interpretation if you want, but PLEASE leave garbage anti-information maps like this one out of it.

@36 - the map is from last night before the caucus votes were pre-announced.

unPC, do you really think that all racists moved to the GOP? And do you think that Clinton will be able to woo enough blacks in Ohio to help her win? As McCain would say, my friend, I have news for you.

I said if mccain isn't strong in the south take the fight there. trying to win only 2 states at the detriment to the rest of the campaign is stupid. kerry lost because he focused on 2 states and didn't win either.

again, why devote all your resources to 2 states that will paint you into a corner

I said if mccain isn't strong in the south take the fight there. trying to win only 2 states at the detriment to the rest of the campaign is stupid. kerry lost because he focused on 2 states and didn't win either.

again, why devote all your resources to 2 states that will paint you into a corner

and if you dont want to do the math on it, then shut up. if any democrat repeated 2004 but won VA and any state with more than 5 EC votes, they would have more than 270.

I'll let that sink in. democrats can win without ohio or florida if they win VA and 1 other state with 5 EC votes. you're crazy for trying to repeat the same thing again and again without success.

there are so many ways to dice up the EC but one fact remains, you just need to get to 270. you can afford to lose ohio if you can win in other states. what dont you get about this? imagine if kerry had won in ohio and lost in wisconsin. democrats still would have lost. and kerry came very close to losing wisconsin mroe so than winning ohio.

@42, Kerry won Ohio in the Dem primary. How'd that work out in the general?

While I'll agree the only reason Clinton won Texas was because all my fellow Republicans voted for her, not wanting Obama to win, I don't agree with you who say we shouldn't be able to vote in the Dem primaries. I might be registered as a Republican but that doesn't mean I'm stupid enough to vote only according to party lines. I'm a proud Republican who's proud to vote for Obama.