In the last two election cycles we've seen an unusual level of stability. Few states flipped between the Republicans and the Democrats in those two elections, and most states saw quite large victory margins for one party or the other. In fact, in only 12 of the 50 states was the winning margin 5 points or less.
Actually, each party saw wins of 5 points or less in 6 states. And you'd think that these states are likely to be the key battle grounds in the fall of 2008. That means the Republicans will be trying to pick up Wisconsin (Kerry won by a fraction), New Hampshire (Kerry by 2), Pennsylvania (Kerry by 2), Michigan (Kerry by 4), Minnesota (Kerry by 4) amd Oregon (Kerry by 4), while the Democrats will be focuse on Iowa (Bush by 1), New Mexico (Bush by 1), Ohio (Bush by 2), Nevada (Bush by 3), Colorado (Bush by 4) and Florida (Bush by 5). Put that all together and the real goldmine is a line of Great Lakes/Midwestern states stretching from Pennsylvania to Minnesota and Iowa worth a total of 84 electoral votes. Other than that, well Florida's 27 electoral votes are the other big prize.So keeping that in mind - well, if that's the map of where the election will really be decided, does that affect who you think the parties should nominate for the presidency (if they hope to win)? Or is that map of the truly competitive areas of the country largely irrelevant to who's really the most electable?
Posted by armand at February 19, 2007 09:32 AM | TrackBack | Posted to Politics