The Opportunity States: Nevada, Colorado, Iowa
In 2004 we heard a lot about battleground states. Let us consider “Democratic presidential opportunity states,” critical states that look winnable in 2008. The first pass on finding such states is to list all those states Kerry failed to win that were carried by any Democratic presidential candidate in the last quarter century. These fall into three main groups: five in the West totaling 32 electoral votes (Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and Montana), three in the Midwest totaling 38 electoral (Iowa, Missouri, and Ohio), and six in the South totaling 76 electoral votes (Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Louisiana). Further east there is also West Virginia (5 electoral votes). This initially suggests the opportunity is in the South, but absent Bill Clinton’s considerable political skills and Southern appeal, the South looks very tough. The GOP has recast the South as its base. In Florida and Georgia, the GOP controls the governor’s office and both houses of the legislature. Both Senate seats are held by the GOP in Kentucky, Georgia, and Tennessee. Al Gore didn’t carry his native Tennessee in 2000. John Edwards didn’t swing either of the Carolinas for Kerry. The picture in the South is not totally bleak. Both Senators from Arkansas are Democrats. The Democrats hold both the governorship and legislature in Louisiana. Still the opportunity in the South is limited. Similarly, the GOP dominance in Missouri and Ohio may limit the Midwestern opportunity.
In contrast, in the five Western states listed above, the Democrats hold the governorship in three (Arizona, Montana, and New Mexico). Compare that to only one of the Midwestern opportunity states with a Democratic governor (Iowa) and only two of the six Southern opportunity states with Democratic governors (Louisiana and Tennessee). In New Mexico the Democrats additionally control both houses of the state legislature. Of the five Western states above only one (Arizona) has two GOP senators. Remember: Missouri, Ohio, Georgia, , Kentucky and Tennessee have no Democratic senators.
Thus all five of the Western opportunities (Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and Montana) have a solid base, but only Iowa in the Midwest, West Virginia in Appalachia, and Arkansas, Louisiana, and Tennessee in the South are good Democratic opportunities without serious rebuilding of the state parties. There are a few other opportunities scattered around. For example, North Dakota has two Democratic senators but has consistently voted for GOP presidential candidates.
How does this analysis stack up with recent polling? The five red states currently most unfavorable to Bush are Nevada, Ohio, Iowa, Arkansas, and Colorado (in that order with Nevada being the least favorable to Bush). Those states have 47 Electoral votes between them. Kerry was 18 short. As noted above, Ohio is currently dominated by the GOP at the state level, but that is not true of Nevada, Iowa, Arkansas, and Colorado. Of these four, three were decided in 2004 by less than 7%: Nevada, Iowa, and Colorado. (Ohio and New Mexico were also red states in 2004 decided by 7% or less.
How important are Nevada, Colorado, and Iowa? In the last quarter century, the winning presidential candidate has always carried at least two of these three. Had all three voted for John Kerry, he would be president today. Al Gore carried Iowa in 2000. Had he carried Nevada and Colorado as well, he would have been elected and likely be serving his second term today. Bill Clinton carried all three in 1992 and two (Iowa and Nevada) in 1996. Thus a strong appeal (if not an outright win) in Nevada, Colorado, and Iowa is necessary to winning the presidency in 2008. The candidate who can run well in these three states can run well in the other Western opportunity states (New Mexico, Arizona, and Montana), in the other Midwestern opportunity states (Missouri and Ohio), in West Virginia, possibly in parts of the South (Arkansas, Louisiana, and Tennessee), and possibly in the Dakotas. In other words, if the Democrats nominate a candidate who will win Nevada, Colorado, and Iowa, the same candidate will also have a broad appeal to put lots of red states in play.
If we look at these three (Nevada, Colorado and Iowa) as the best opportunities and necessary wins for the Democrats, what are some characteristics they share?
They are all west of the Mississippi, just not on the West Coast. They have a balanced mix of urban and rural voters. Gay marriage and gun control are unpopular. Environmental issues could play well in these states. They have minorities, notably Hispanics in the West, but are they are not dominated by minorities.
This suggests the following strategy:
1. Find a candidate who is from or who strongly appeals to this geography.
2. Find a moderate candidate who is comfortable in a mixed urban-rural environment and who is not vulnerable on the three G’s (guns, God, and gays).
Every “dry land” Western Democrat Governor or Senator fits these two criteria. Now find a candidate who has a good record in office and proven campaign skills, and we have a winner.
Leo Brown | July 9, 2005 | Comment on This Post (13 so far) |
Your Name: Your Personal Note: | Your Email: Friends' Emails*: |
Comments
Actually Senator Bill Nelson (D) the current Senior Senator from Florida would probably disagree with at least a few of your statements.
Posted by: bill coleman | Jul 9, 2005 7:32:02 PM
I stand corrected. My sincere apologies to Senator Bill Nelson (D-Florida) serving since 2000 and to his alert supporters.
Posted by: Leo Brown | Jul 9, 2005 9:11:05 PM
I'd say there is another very important factor to consider in this particular discussion and the more general one about what Dems need to do to win -- and thats level the playing field in the media.
At the national level, there is a clear acknowledgement that we need to counter the influence of right-wing talk radio, Fox News and generally bad and biased coverage.
But at the state level, we need to address this issue as well. I don't know anything about teh media in Iowa or Colorada, but to take NV as an example, the largest newspaper in the state is the print equivalent of Fox - the Review-Journal. Although many of its reporters try hard to be professional, the editorial line comes across not only on the Ed page but in the coverage choices, headline writing and, in the case of an election, coverage of the race.
Sen Reid showed one way to deal with this when, early in 2003, he went out of his way to win support of the RJ's publisher on some conservation issues they both cared about.
Another is of course on-line media, which has shown it can influence coverage -- for worse as in South Dakota last year, and for better.
So in addition to the many important points you make here, we should look at the media environment in those states and work towards improving it with regional, state and local online political covearge.
Posted by: desmoulins | Jul 10, 2005 11:13:56 AM
Your post backs up a theory I've been developing - that the true "swing" area is the Mississippi River Valley.
My early favorite for the '08 race is Governor Brad Henry of Oklahoma. I think he brings in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Missouri - along with New Mexico and probably Colorado. He's so close to Texas that he can probably force them to defend their backyard and spend a lot of their cash in doing so.
If he were to have Russ Feingold as a running mate, it would also lock down the upper Mid-West. Wisconsin for sure, most likely Minnesota, Michegan, and Iowa. He puts a strong showing in both Ohio and Pa.
This strategy works especially well if Bill Richardson remains in NM, Chris Bell can pull off a win in the Tx gubernatorial race in '06 (a distinct possiblity), and if Time Kaine, Jr wins the Va gubernatorial race this year, followed by Mark Warner taking on George Allen for a Va Senate seat in '06.
Henry is a social moderate and conservative with money. He managed to balance the state budget while diverting more money to education and health care - two winning issues for Dems across the nation. He's also got a background as an award winning economist, which gives him some authority to challenge some of the Republican agenda on shifting the tax burden to the poor.
Of course, nothing makes it a sure deal. A lot depends on who the Republican nominee is. John McCain looks like a gimmee, but that's happened before and fallen through.
I think the best Dems can do in the meantime is focus on the Va Gov. race, draft Mark Warner to take out George Allen, and support the campaign of Chris Bell in Tx. As an additional point, Katherine Harris's run against Bill Nelson will pull in a lot of cash that we need to counter-act.
That, at least, is my view.
XT
Posted by: Xpatriated Texan | Jul 10, 2005 4:38:11 PM
Leo:
Another excellent post (even with the Nelson error).
Do you really believe that the third G, gays, is such a Democrat killer in the West? I agree that it's a big deal in the Bible Belt, but I'd have thought that westerners would be more concerned about the government legislating their private lives than they would be about gays.
Posted by: Bert Lowry | Jul 11, 2005 5:39:56 AM
Bert,
Thanks. Bert, yeah, I needed one more pass with the fact checker besides the spell checker. I introduced the error when re-editing it.
I do think the Mississippi River Valley is also a neglected swing region as XT point out. I once lived in that region.
The best thing for Democrats on gay marriage is for the issue to cool or go away. Live and let live is a good motto for the West, but gay marriage per se is too untraditional for the West and most of the country. Utah, Montana, and Oregon joined Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, North Dakota, Ohio, and Oklahoma, in approving anti-same-sex marriage amendments by double-digit margins. Opponents of gay marriage feel more strongly on the issue than advocates. That said, civil rights laws protecting gays, including those involving partners, are a different matter. Once the word “marriage” goes away, then “live and let live” again becomes operative.
Posted by: Leo Brown | Jul 11, 2005 6:44:19 AM
XT,
I like your comments. However, my guess is that Allen will mobilize the GOP base to take out McCain the way W did. Allen would also presumably be willing to put Jeb on the ticket to get W’s backing, something I’m not sure McCain would do. I am guessing Warner won’t take on Allen, but will go directly to a 2008 run for the WH.
Posted by: Leo Brown | Jul 11, 2005 9:48:33 AM
I have edited out my Florida error. Too bad that can't be done with the 2000 count. That is one decision of Justice O'Connor I now regret.
Posted by: Leo Brown | Jul 11, 2005 3:42:45 PM
I actually think there is a lot of ground to be made on the issue of gay marriage - but not if we leave it as simply being "gay marriage".
Here's my view: Marriage was traditionally the common reference to the Rite of Holy Matrimony. That power should be left to the individual churches to decide who should and should not be joined in Holy Matrimony. That spiritual joining of souls should be beyond the government's ability to legislate. So why then is it a requirement in most states for a marriage license to be granted by the government to be joined by the church in Holy Matrimony?
Nor should the government be able to tell you how to live your life. If you and your brother want to live together, share a bank account, own joint property, and hold each other's medical power of attorney, where does the government get off saying you can't? Do you lose that right if you happen to live with your best friend instead of your brother? In fact, does it make any difference who lives in a house together, what their relationship is, and which room they decide to sleep in?
So, the sanctity of Holy Matrimony is preserved by making it the official and sole responsibility of the church. The ability of all people to form a single household for tax and benefit purposes is also upheld - whether it is called "marriage" or "domestic union" or "united domicile" doesn't matter, so long as the legal rights are the same.
Voila! What was a sticky "moral values" issue is now an issue of church/state independence and individual rights.
Yeah, the Religious Un-Right would attack it. That only shows that it's probably the right thing to do.
XT
Posted by: Xpatriated Texan | Jul 13, 2005 3:55:45 AM
XT,
The country may eventually go the way you are suggesting. Churches are by no means unanimous on the subject. Society is rethinking the basis of marriage. Is it about religion? Is it about love? Is it about bearing children? Is it about an alliance between two families? Until society settles on the answers, gay marriage could be a third rail issue for Democrats and Republicans: for Democrats because they could appear anti-church and anti-family; for Republicans because they could appear anti-civil rights and mean spirited. Family law is traditionally state law, so each state can find its own way. In California marriage is limited to the traditional definition by referendum, but non-traditional couples have considerable, almost equivalent civil rights. The courts may yet upset that, but the Democratic legislature, the Republican governor, and most of the public can live with that for now.
Posted by: Leo Brown | Jul 13, 2005 7:12:42 AM
I understand all of that, Leo, and I'm not suggesting that we push it to the front of our campaigns.
However, I do believe it is a way for Democrats to defend the sanctity of marriage through Holy Matrimony (because if you aren't joined in Holy Matrimony, your marriage is officially not a sacred one anyway), defend the rights of domestic domicile, and expand the discussion to one of defending the average american's right to build the household they want.
As you say, it is very much a state issue, but you know it is going to keep coming up in national elections. I don't think Democrats should run from defending the right of gays to be a family, but I think defining it in such a narrow was of only "gay rights" rather than broadly as "american rights" will hurt Democrats.
It's only my two cents - I've never been elected President, so I can't stand on my own ability to do so.
XT
Posted by: Xpatriated Texan | Jul 14, 2005 12:01:52 AM
XT:
You've never been elected President? This site is for current and former Presidents only. Moderator!
Posted by: Bert Lowry | Jul 14, 2005 5:24:18 AM
I know -
you are shocked! shocked! that gambling is going on in this establishment.
XT
Posted by: Xpatriated Texan | Jul 16, 2005 7:52:34 PM
Ads by Google
(and yes, we know that sometimes they're very, very wrong. Other times, they're right on.)
