Richardson and the Map
by Trey Rentz, Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 11:28:37 AM EDT
I would like to open up a discussion about what electoral map would look like in the fall of 2008. Given that America has chosen only two sitting senators in its entire history, to become president - I decided it might make sense to look at a Richardson candidacy and see how it plays across the crucial, high electoral vote states relative to the shifting senate map.
As we know, the house and senate are up to gain more seats for the Dems. The crucial advantage, being a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Right now, the Webb amendments that would have helped the situation in Iraq were torpedoed by the republican slight minority (predictably enough). And although
the house plays by different rules, even there we see trouble with bush republicans. Pelosi is draining the swamp.
There are three regions I think would play well. The southwest, where Richardson is popular (having been elected by the widest margin of victory in his state's history). And, speaking as one from the dirty south - I do think he will play well in many states in the sunbelt. And he plays well enough in the midwest. New Mexico has a kind of rugged character that way. IMHO the seats in play - Domenici (who is up to his eyeballs in the Attorney General Scandal) (NM), Maine, Minnesota, and Oregon are all favored by a Richardson coattail.
Now the defended seats, in Louisiana, and South Dakota, are not harmed, in my view, by having someone on the ticket who is not Hillary. Don't get me wrong. I like Hillary, and as a small businessman I would be ecstatic to see the whole health care thing worked out (honestly, I do think that is a good signature issue for her). But in the Red states, she will have a massive campaign launched against her and the GOP is praying she will get the nomination so they can sharpen up the old propaganda machine and use it all against her. Richardson would blindside them. Trust me. The GOP is all set to battle Hillary down there in the south. She has very little pull there. The GOP will count the south as their base, and The Louisiana seat will be harder to battle for. As will be South Dakota (same rural effect). There is a character I find appealing in Richardson, that I believe will play well in the rural areas. And I guess we all know the lesson about how to surprise your enemy.
Truly, victory in Iraq or any strong push forward there would upend alot of plans, except in my view Richardsons. After all, he is telling everyone we are selling the Iraqi government short and we should let them take over. McCain is trying to make the GOP side look like victory depends on troop levels. Richardson and others are turning the Dem side of this equation into a logical and healthy discussion about whether or not a tripartite entity is a win there, and as usual, contrasts the GOP use of force in favor of diplomacy.Its a strong argument in the south, still. And in many red states. Who for better or worse, will likely decide, again, the election. Just as those voters in Ohio did last time.
IMHO a diplomat in the white house will go a long way in fixing the damage done by a previous governor of Texas that chose force over diplomacy.
I think Richardson would help the map for everyone. I see alot of purple on the map this year. There are safe democratic seats all over the map, and the new territory seems to be solidly along the lines of New Mexico and the Govenor's potential strength. Of course I am vaguely aware there are other candidates in the race, and they might have their own effect on the map. (see poll) What do you think?