[furball]

Originally Posted by Barrow|Pony

He grew up in Arkansas.

Fair enough - I said he was from Chicago with a quick reference to his Wikipedia article saying that that was where he was born - I didn't read down and see that he moved to Arkansas when he was 4. Apologies for that.

Originally Posted by Barrow|Pony

Kerry and Gore didn't lose 'because of Ohio' or 'because of Florida'. Surely those states are where the closest vote counts were recorded, but they lost because of their campaigns, their strategies, their platforms, and their ability to brand themselves as effective, charismatic leaders.

I'm not convinced about that. At the end of the day, the electorate's vote count towards the Electoral College - they aren't directly assigned to the candidate. If you take enough states to give you a majority in the Electoral College, then you win - even if you only take 10 states out of 50.

Originally Posted by Barrow|Pony

You have to target battleground states, yes, but losing those battleground states becomes less crucial, ideally even irrelevant, should a candidate take a state or two that their party is not traditionally picked to capture.

There's little point targetting a state that has few electoral votes and naturally falls with the other party, e.g. Alabama and Maine. The resources that you would need to put into taking them wouldn't be a particularly efficient use of the candidate's money. The battleground states are titled as such because they represent a decent number of Electoral College votes and are within a 5-10% swing to the party that didn't take the state last time. Ohio and Florida are the obvious examples, but the entire Mid-West must surely be included in this too (Iowa, Indiana, etc).

Originally Posted by Barrow|Pony

Should a Democratic nominee, for example, win the Carolinas, the focus on Florida is lessened. Should the Republican take Pennsylvania, the need to win Ohio is diminished. A great way to do this is to field a nominee from a battleground state or a state thats not traditionally in the party's camp. I.E. Romney from Massachusetts, Bill Richardson from Arizona, etc.

Then again, the candidate still has to get enough votes from the rest of the states to triumph in the Electoral College. Jimmy Carter might have been from Georgia, which he took, but it didn't stop Reagan taking the states overall 46-4.

Regarding the Carolinas, I'd say that if a Democrat is able to take them then they'll probably take Florida as well. In the last two Presidential elections (including the last one, where Edwards was from South Carolina), it was closer in Florida than either of the Carolinas.

Originally Posted by Barrow|Pony

So I guess I'd revise my statement. Democratic candidates need to be either from the South or from Ohio. Get a leg up on the electoral college. But, considering the caliber of Florida Democrats...meh.

Or be like Kennedy, who revitalised the nation and whose election heralded a new era in America. Which Obama can do. Besides, he's from Illinois which is relatively close to Ohio, if that counts for anything. The most important thing in my eyes is that he's not from the North-East, because it's just too far away from much of the country.