wake UP!!!!

This is a HOW TO guide in beating the republicans. So I posted a diary yesterday about the strategy the democrats should adopt if we want to win the White House come November. I am gonna keep writing about this until people wake up from their selfish candidate slumbers. Some people disagree as to who will be our nominee, but one thing is certain: we have to go all out to win the presidency.

As of right now the tracker still indicates that both
candidates will lose against McCain. This is troubling, more trouble for the future nominee because no matter how you slice it, Obama and Clinton are losing.

So what should be our strategy for winning?

History teaches so many valuable lessons all we have to do is look.So lets look at key demographics and the states that previous Democratic President has won.

1992: Clinton v. Bush

Photobucket
REPUB = BLUE; RED=DEM. [the map shows a county breakdown of the results, the shades of blue go republican while all shades of red and pink go democrat (I don't know why they switched up the colors like that)]

And  some poll breakdowns of who voted for who....

Clinton lost these demographics:
       -Conservatives
       -Southerners (by 2%)
       -The income groups of $50-74,999 and over $75,000 (by 3%)

But came close to winning these demographics:
       -the midwesterners
       -independents
       -the age group of 50-64

Clinton was very successful with moderates and all the minority groups as well young people and the 65 and overs. The Clinton electoral map should be a map that the 2008 Dem. Nominee should try and accomplish, it was obviously successful but it also brought the country together with the philosphies of liberals, moderates, and conservatives voting for Bill. WE need this kind of unity between the three philosophies if we want a win...

Now 2000

Photobucket

If you'll notice where Gores weaknesses were in the Midwest and rural areas. Red dominates the map and that is something we need to change, if we want a solid victory....

2004...

2004 results

It looks relatively the same as 2000 and that is where Kerry failed. He failed to go beyond the conventional areas the Gore picked up. Kerry and Gore failed in picking up moderates and conservatives that the Democratic party, whether you believe it or not, needs to claim victory. The 2008 nominee will need to go further than both Kerry and Gore, they will need to go to the length that Bill got in 1992, if not it spells out a loss for democrats in the year we though we were invincible in.

I think that Hillary has a better chance than Barack in bringing the three philosophies together as well as catching the groups that have been so illusive to the past failed dems of 2000 and 2004.

I think that in theory, the two candidates are much stronger together though because they bring in all the demographics Bill got in 1992. Obama brings in independents and the all important youth vote, while Hillary brings in the 50-64 age groups as well as moderate conservatives and the rural vote. Together they are much stronger than they are apart. While we shouldn't take our usual demographics for granted we should definitely try and reach out to those demographics that have gone democrat in the past but did not for the past election.

People like my dad, who believes in democratic values and is an independent, but will go republican if he doesn't like the democrats. While most of us don't get this type of mentality, there are people that vote solely on gut feelings rather than on issues alone. People like my mom who absolutely loves JFK and is a life-long democrat but voted republican in 2004, because she thought Kerry couldn't get the job done and frankly just didn't like him or trust him. These are the demographics at risk if Obama gets the nom....

Hard-core democrats are just that, HARDCORE. Meaning they will vote democrat no matter what. We need to focus on those people like my mom and dad who base their votes on instinct and their own judgment; otherwise we are in for a terrible loss come November. I have tried and tried to convince them that McCain isn't worthy of their vote, but the damage is done. They are uneasy about where this party is going. Life-long dems are uneasy about what is going to happen this year and its absolutely horrible.

Tags: 2008, barack, Hillary (all tags)

Comments

19 Comments

Re: wake UP!!!!

Too bad its McCain, and he's gonna have more than average GOP pull in the SW, as thats one of the few areas that grew 2000 to 2004. Other than the NE, its fugly.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-04-24 04:59PM | 0 recs
Re: wake UP!!!!

I just cant believe how red it looks in 2000 and 2004...

by amde 2008-04-24 05:15PM | 0 recs
Re: wake UP!!!!

Don't worry, the country isn't as red as it looks in the maps. Much of the red areas are empty land with very few voters.

by LakersFan 2008-04-24 05:21PM | 0 recs
Actually the rural vote varies based on region

Clinton does better in the rural rust belt and rural south.  Obama does better in rural Midwest and Mountain West.

by Student Guy 2008-04-24 05:00PM | 0 recs
Actually I think that Clinton's rural strength

might be better defined as in Appalachia as that covers rural OH, PA, VA, TN, GA, AL, MS...

by Student Guy 2008-04-24 05:02PM | 0 recs
queue
Deliverance music.
by linc 2008-04-24 05:23PM | 0 recs
Understanding Appalachia

Not quite. I live in East Tennessee and we aren't deliverance country, thank you very much.

Clinton does better than Obama in Appalachia, but she will not beat McCain. Why? Coal mining unions have disappeared in WV and KY. Without them, voters in those states vote on "values" issues and they won't go with Hillary Clinton.

The only place Clinton is stronger is OH and PA, because unions are still strong. But she will have major problems getting the black vote out in Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia after this primary. Without HUGE black support, she cannot win PA or OH.

This is why I reject Jerome's analysis about Rust Belt states. Both candidates have base consolidation issues. But Rust Belt states are becoming lest Rust Beltish, and Independents in those states are much more likely to go with Obama than Clinton. Lost elderly Reagan Democrats get replaced by educated Obamacans and Indies.

by elrod 2008-04-24 05:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Understanding Appalachia

I thought the educated Obamacans and indies care about Supreme court. Shouldnt they go with Hillary in that case?

Also, some 50% of black voters (who are an avg of 8-10% of the population, will be so angry (due to some people spreading hatred) that they will sit at home. That means 4-5% of the population. And that will lead to Hillary's loss inspite of she leading McCain by more than 5% in some of these states? Seems like no logic there.

But yep that same 4-5% can propel Obama to a landslide victory after he loses 20-30% of the population due various reasons? Again seems like no logic there.

by Sandeep 2008-04-24 08:00PM | 0 recs
Re: wake UP!!!!

but don't you know?  with BO as the nominee democrats will put states like missouri.

snark ;)

by canadian gal 2008-04-24 05:11PM | 0 recs
Re: wake UP!!!!

It would have been better if Rommey was the candidate and not McCain.  He is from the SW and many votes in CO, NM, and NV are more than willing to change candidates.

Howard Dean has not been my favorate late (though i am still on the monthly donation plan) but having the convention in CO was a very smart move.

david

by giusd 2008-04-24 05:27PM | 0 recs
Re: wake UP!!!!

McCain doesn't have much support in the SW outside AZ. His support base is the northeast and among military folks in FL.

by elrod 2008-04-24 05:43PM | 0 recs
Re: wake UP!!!!

Dont be soo sure.  NV and CO are conservative and CO is a border state to AZ at the four corners.

And BO does not exactly match up to the liberaterian SW.  Barrage, AB, and immigration are bigger issues there.

david

by giusd 2008-04-24 05:46PM | 0 recs
Re: wake UP!!!!

Yes, but they are changing. Obama has polled very well in the West and Clinton has polled terribly. Same for the Upper Midwest.

by elrod 2008-04-24 05:47PM | 0 recs
Re: wake UP!!!!

obama stills loses against mccain...

by amde 2008-04-24 05:51PM | 0 recs
People we know

I know swing voters too. A friend here in East TN voted for Bush twice because she didn't like Clinton and thought Gore was blah. And she hated Kerry. But she likes Obama a lot. If Obama wins, she votes Democratic. If Clinton wins, she votes McCain. She's a middle class suburban white woman born in Michigan but now lives in TN.

A student of mine is a white single mother from Knoxville and will do the same as my friend.

Hillary hatred is much stronger than Obama hatred. Don't be fooled by the strategic alliance with Rush Limbaugh.

by elrod 2008-04-24 05:47PM | 0 recs
Re: People we know

i did say they were stronger together because they bring in more demographics together than apart. A joint ticket would be perfect....

by amde 2008-04-24 05:49PM | 0 recs
Re: wake UP!!!!

Thanks for posting this diary, amde!

The electoral map is the way to go and it looks much better for Hillary than Obama. I can't see a unity ticket. Obama would be a detriment so if we want to win, it's going to have to be Hillary and a good VP pick.

I can see Hillary winning 322 EVs based on her primary wins and current polling trends.

Obama would get very few R votes and fewer than half of the Indy votes. You can't judge how those voting patterns went for him during the primaries since he actively sought Dem-for-a-day voters.

If you want a crack at McCain, nominate Hillary!

by Nobama 2008-04-24 06:00PM | 0 recs
I do not know a single individual who says

they will vote for Obama and also say they would not vote for Clinton.  OTOH, I know many, many who say they want to vote for Hillary and will vote McCain or will stay home if Obama is the choice.  They believe, as I do, that Obama is an unknown with many connections that they do not like...Wright, Rezko, etc. and they believe he, himself, is an unknown and thus more dangerous than McCain.  These people used to denigrate Bill Clinton but now look upon him as a very good, sometimes even exceptionally good, president.

by macmcd 2008-04-24 08:23PM | 0 recs
Re: wake UP!!!!

Thank you, great diary!  :)

by Hurdy Gurdy 2008-05-07 06:31PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads