OK, a week removed, I'm beginning to get a better handle on what happened and what needs to happen. One mistake I'm seeing alot in the corporate media is the dividing of America in two, red and blue. Then they take the attributes of the red states, and talk about how the Dems need to win over those voters. But that's bunk. I would say, there are basically 4 kinds of red states. First, there's the Old South. In those states, black people vote Democratic and whites votes overwhelmingly Republican, and it's not worth trying to change that. Maybe in Arkansas, maybe in Virginia, maybe in North Carolina, it's worth it to try to peel off enough GOP votes to get the Dems over the top. But it's a low priority. Another "kind" of red state is, well, Ohio and Florida. Big states, purple states, winnable states with diverse populations. This is one of the two avenues to victory the Dems have. The third kind of red state is the far midwest...Kansas, the Dakotas, Utah, etc. Those states have very few electoral votes, and from what I know of them, there's no strategy for the Dems winning them. So forget them as part of a possible winning coalition. The fourth kind of state, is the Southwest. 4 states, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and (I guess) Arizona. These states have increasing Hispanicization. They are very rich in libertarian Republicans. Here, there's got to be a nice, comparatively easy strategy for winning votes. Dems had alot of success in Colorado, so we need to take advantage of and accelerate the trends already in place. (I couldn't figure out where to put Iowa.) The big problem for the Dems in 2004, in retrospect, was that with the current message, there were very few winnable states from Bush's 2000 coalition. But on the other side of things, Kerry had more territory to defend. What the Dems need to do is open up a couple of new fronts. They effectively did this only in Ohio. A message geared toward the Southwest probably could have won Colorado and New Mexico and maybe Nevada. Florida is so EV rich, that even tho the trends there seem to be going against us, we've got to at least keep Florida in mind. I don't have a big finish. I just think that the pundits are being kind of silly in taking the responses of Bush voters from Texas and Idaho and Georgia, and making that the basis for their critique of the Democratic party. It's the exit polling from Ohio, Colorado, and New Mexico that's interesting. Thoughts?
Re: 3 kinds of red states For the most part, I think you are right on in your analysis. Of your groups, the Dems could conceivably pick off these states (as you mostly mentioned): Dixie + West Virginia: Possibility for a couple of states like Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina and Arkansas. Mississippi, Alabama, Georgoa, South Carolina are total write-offs. Florida: A unique place. There's definately a chance with the right candidate. I'm thinking of a certain gay latina sheriff from Dallas. She would get the law and order and S&M votes. Upper South/Midwest: Ohio is clearly within grasp, as is Iowa. Indiana is a total write-off. Buffalo Commons: These states should all be depopulated and the lands should be given back to Native Americans. Is there any state more useless than Oklahoma? Other than to ensure that California's central valley has its fair share of red necks, there's not a single useful thing that Oklahoma brings to the table. Kansas? North Dakota. There is no hope for any of these states. Nebraska is the only right-thinking place with electoral votes by congressional district and a unicameral legislature. Otherwise the place should be converted back to territories. Southwest: As SD pointed out, the southwest is definitely in place - particularly as the religious zeoleots overplay their hand with more police state stupidity and religious police in the bedroom and doctors offices. The combination of hispanics, dope-smoking libertarians, and suburban security moms is the electoral key to be unlocked. Northern Rocky Mountains. Utah is about as likely to be in play for the Dems as a openly gay Mormom. Clinton did take Montana once, but that was part of a national tidal wave. Idaho, Wyoming. Who gives a rat's ass? Same for Alaska. Any state that would actually elect Lisa Murkowski deserves to have massive environmental catastrophes.
Re: 3 kinds of red states Maybe superdave needs to learn to count first. "The fourth kind of state, is the Southwest. 4 states, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and (I guess) Arizona. These states have increasing Hispanicization." I was hearing that on MSNBC, too. Just the look on guest host Pat Buchanan was worth the price of cable. I always laugh when you guys claim a "Hispanicization" of traditional Hispanic territory. Just look at the names of the states and cities! What the GOP has learned, Hispanics (we still use that term, right?) or as we want to be called this week, Latinos, maintain similar views on family values, against gay rights, well most of the party lines the GOP has claimed as their own. By now, Latinos are the largest racial minority in this nation. It is difficult to speak to a diverse group as Latinos when the most we all have in common is that we speak Spanish...well, some version of Spanish. In general, Latinos are quite conservative with old country thinking. Saying a few words in Spanish on the campaign trail will not cut it anymore, but it sure does help. Just don't call Argentina Soccer Fan a Mexican. VIVA BUSH!
Re: 3 kinds of red states Feh. I wrote the title before the post, and didn't go back to check the title. Garcia, please change thread title.
I would agree with Ohio. My sense here is that despite Kerry's attempt to play to the job loss in the northern part of the state, the war and his postion on it undercut his ability to win the state. "I'd rather fight 'em over there than over here," had the ring of a mantra in quite a few public circles I found myself in. This can be overcome-and should have if only Kerry had is act together on his position on the war. I would agree with Florida too, but not living there it's hard get a sense of truly how dfficult a task it will be.
I grew up in Fl, and it's definitely winable -- I think you have to focus on the college campuses (and there are MANY) -- if you look at the blue pockets, they're around Tallahassee, Miami.. but there are many a community college and smaller colleges that are pretty liberal. And a lot of them are not necessarily a youth crowd. The average age of one of the schools i went to was 28. A lot of people that want to go back to school to better themselves. I wouldn't write off the redneck riviera (panhandle)as a whole. You just have to get the message out.
The Dems have to realize that before you start trying to win any states, you have to protect your own. The upper midwest (wis, minn, mich, ohio) was once a democratic stronghold but no longer. The population there is largely socially conservative and are turned off by the Dems overly lefthandedness on those issues. The southern states are not going to be changing any time soon. A moderate Republican, such as Giuliani, will be able to win New Hampshire and Maine, as well as the entire upper midwest. Florida and the southwest states would flock to him as well. So you need to run a moderate to have a chance, or it may be all over for at least the next 8-12 years for you guys. PS-lets see how divided the country becomes when it is Hillary Rodham Clinton vs Jeb Bush in 2008!!!
I don't think a lisping, twice-divorced, shacking up with his mistress, Eye-talian from New York City is gonna run too well in the South. Sure, he'll still win Alabama and Mississippi, but he'll lose West Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, Virginia, Arkansas, and maybe Georgia (presuming the Dems run a race as well as they've run the last 4. A Dukakis-type failure would still lose.) So you guys go ahead and take Minnesota and so forth. We'll take the, what, 50? electoral votes you just threw away. I think it's just hilarious that people from the North don't get this.
Yea, but Florida is the fastest growing state and the influx is from either Latin America or the North USA, like Ohio. People forget, and you are correct, that Florida is the South as South can get, but it continues to change from just over 4 years ago.
Re: 3 kinds of red states That's true, but under the Tom Osborne Act, they do get full immunity from prosecution upon entering the state.
Well, anything north of Ocala is very southern, but the rest of it might as well be broken off and stuck on the side of New Jersey. You have a point about the influx, though. I still think it can be won. Florida used to be a VERY democratic state. I think they need to get back the union, working class people in that state. Focus on the economy instead of the moral values. Fl just voted for a $1 raise in minimum wage because the federal govt sure wasn't doing anything for them.
Yep. We'll just have to see how the migration pattern plays out, because it's not just old Jewish ladies from New York who are moving to Florida. But you gotta wonder how the last two elections would have turned out if the Coast Guard had intercepted Elian's vote, or Elian turned to the camera and said "Screw this, I wanna go back to live with my dad." Now, Dave is right - there is a lot of Red America that won't be hard to blue [/Arrested Development reference]. Look at the map that shows county election results in shades of purple: Most of the populace that we're painting red is actually varying shades of purple (the red expanses in the west are misleading, since the population density is so low). If I were the Democrats, I would forget the Appalachians (though I would still fight for WV) and focus on taking VA, NC, SC, FL, OH, NV, NM and AZ from the Bush column.
Let's see, how about running a non-jewish Joe Lieberman except this one has some personality. Kidnap the party away from the Pelosi-lead engergized "base." Re-capture the true base of dems (conservative, but don't want to be associated with all the Jesus-nuts in the big empty squares). These are the groups who had been known as Southern Democrats or Reagan Democrats. The net gains would be far greater over the losses to the Green Party, etc. Find a candidate like this and it will be easy to distance themselves from the campaign trick that "If you are Democrat, then therefore you are Liberal." tag. The new Northeast outposts in NC, FL, VA, and even GA can be put in play with the right candidate.
Who cares about "Mayberry." The important part are "Population Centers." Dems probably have the numerical advantage in these parts, but many will tend to be conservative dems, who don't have a strong conviction and if a bad candidate is put up, can easily go the other way. Cater to them and you will pull in the "New York Republican" as well.
the analysis is fairly sound, but oh so freakin' cynical - this is no way to plan a presidential campaign if your message is good enough
Pensacola, Tallahassee, Panama City, Ocala... Florida is fairly densely populated. It isn't like Oklahoma or Wyoming. There's a lot of people in "Mayberry".
If the Democrats could figure out a way to stop the NRA convincing people that, "they are gunna take away our guuuns." West Virginia would be blue. Even though it's at the lowest point since 1952, 58% are still registered Democrat. In the governor's race the Democrat (okay, only in name) won by 63%. It has to change soon though because, looking at the trends, it's not long until WV become just another solid red southern state.
In the South, most "Reagan Democrats" were, earlier, Nixon Democrats. I.e., they're racists. Forget 'em.
One idea making the rounds is that it's not so much a "red/blue state" divide as it is an "urban/rural" divide within states that is the key. For example, Illinois is a "blue" state because of Chicago whereas if you remove Chicago from Illinois, then Illinois instantly becomes overwhelmingly a "red" state. The same is apparently true of New York. NYC itself is "blue" while the rest of the state is "red". If this is true of other places, it would mean that in states where a large city or several smaller cities exist, the key is for Dems to get out the vote in those urban areas.
This exactly correct. I also think that Dems need to a better job in the suburbs. Soccer moms became Security moms, or so we've been told.
I think that goes for a lot of red states. And not just the rural portions of red states, either. Gun control is a tough sell in a lot of urban and suburban areas of red states.
If current trends continue (population growth in red state areas, decline in blue state, hispanics turning more republican), the dems are going to have a big fight on their hands to not become very scarce in the next 30 years.