Red America:How Bush will likely beat his 537-vote "landslide."(BIG SWEAT for Democrats)

NRO ^

[Happy2BMe]

November 13, 2003, 8:29 a.m.
Red America
How Bush will likely beat his 537-vote "landslide."

There's been a lot of talk about recent studies showing a decline in the percentage of American voters who identify themselves as Democrats.

Last summer, pollster Mark Penn found that just 32 percent of voters called themselves Democrats, which led Penn to conclude that, at least on the party-ID issue, "the Democratic party is currently in its weakest position since the dawn of the New Deal."

Now a new study by the Pew Research Center pegs the Democratic number at 31 percent, versus 30 percent who call themselves Republicans.

That's very bad news — if you're a Democrat — but what does it actually mean?

Just who are those voters who have switched party affiliation? And perhaps more important, where are they?

As it turns out, many are right where Democrats don't want them to be — in the swing states that could determine the winner of next year's presidential election.

In Minnesota, for example, Democrats used to enjoy a 31-26 advantage in party identification. Now, it's 31-28 in favor of Republicans. In 2000, Bush lost the state by about 58,000 votes out of 2.4 million cast.

Next time around, with more Republicans, he might do better.

In Michigan, Democrats used to enjoy a 33-26 advantage. Now it's 31-29 in favor of Republicans. In 2000, Bush lost the state by about 217,000 votes out of 4.2 million cast.

In Iowa, Democrats used to enjoy a 32-27 advantage. Now, it's 34-27 in favor of the Republicans. In 2000, Bush lost the state by about 4,000 votes out of 1.3 million cast.

In Wisconsin, Democrats used to enjoy a 33-29 advantage. Now, it's 30-29 in favor of the Republicans. In 2000, Bush lost by about 6,000 votes out of 2.6 million cast.

Those are the states that have turned over. In some other states that Bush lost narrowly, Democrats maintain their edge — just less so.

For example, in New Mexico, Democrats used to enjoy a 40-30 advantage. Now, it's 39-35. In 2000, Bush lost by just 366 votes.

And in the most important swing state of all in 2000, Florida, Democrats used to enjoy a 38-33 advantage. Now, it's 37-36 in favor of Republicans. That means Bush might be able to build on his 537-vote landslide.

"Republican gains have come across the board, both geographically and demographically," the Pew report says. "There have been increases in Republican party affiliation in nearly every major voting bloc, except among African-Americans."

And even though Democrats still have a tiny 31-30 advantage nationwide, that may be of little use next year.

"Because Republicans traditionally turn out to vote in higher numbers than do Democrats, the current division in party affiliation among the public could provide the GOP with a slight electoral advantage," the Pew report says.

Much of the discussion about the study has emphasized its conclusion that the United States remains deeply divided politically.

Some commentators have suggested that the study says the country is even more deadlocked than it was in 2000. "The red states get redder, [and] the blue states get bluer," wrote the Washington Post's E. J. Dionne.

Yet that doesn't seem to be the case. According to Pew, red states have indeed gotten redder, but blue states have gotten redder, too. Even the bluest of the blues, such as California, are a bit less so than a few years ago.

Why is it happening? Republican National Committee chief Ed Gillespie has an obvious partisan stake in the situation but nevertheless offered a cogent analysis in a recent memo to party leaders.

"As the Democrat party gets smaller, it becomes more liberal, elitist, and angry," Gillespie wrote, "and as it becomes more liberal, elitist, and angry, it gets smaller."

Ask Democrats and they'll tell you the Pew numbers don't reveal much about anything. The Democrats point out, reasonably, that party affiliation will not matter if more and more people decide not to vote for Bush.

"The number we'll be watching is the number of people who vote for or against President Bush," said Democratic National Committee spokesman Tony Welch.

Welch pointed to a recent Marist College poll that found that 44 percent of those surveyed said they definitely plan to vote against Bush next year, while 38 percent said they definitely plan to vote for him.

"Unless you're a bean counter worried about registration, this is what matters," says Welch.

Well, yes. But the Marist poll also found Bush beating any Democrat matched against him.

And the trends in party affiliation in the swing states that went to Gore in 2000 suggest that it's going to be harder for a Democrat to win those states in 2004.

Count all those beans together and they could mean big trouble for the next Democratic nominee.

— Byron York is also a columnist for The Hill, where this first appeared.

[Fee]

GWB in 2000 was leading Gore until the last weekend when the independents had to ask themselves one question - "Is everything so bad under Clinton Gore that we will vote for an unknown (GWB)?" If Gore did not gaffe, had Clinton legacy and gun control as an issue, he should have won the election (he narrowly lost his home state TN and traditional Dem state West Virginia, either state would have given him the win without FL). Fast foward to 2004, independents are going to ask themselves the same question - "Is everything so bad under GWB that we will vote for an unknown (Dem nominee TBD)?" As things stand, the answer will be NO.

[Uncle Hal]

If these voter registration numbers are true, this is really good news for the GOP. We will need all the help we can get. The Bush haters are absolutely irrational in their hatred of Bush. The 04 campaign is going to be butal. I have never seen the country so deeply divided and I have been following politics for 50 plus years.

[Tacis]

Of course, on the dem side are 95% of blacks, all of Hollywood, most faggots, most criminals (some dificulty voting), most illegal Mexicans, Jamaicans, Haitians (very heavy voting groups), lots of Chinese cash, most college/university professors (unless there is a communist or socialist on the ballor), most union members/officials making more than one million dollars a year, most traitors, all America-haters, and all those who believe there are already too many Roman Catholics on the federal bench. This vast support will not be adequate to unseat Bush or the Republicans.

Alas, this power base is what will asure that the party masters can not let any of the nine dwarfs be the dem candidate for president. Any one of them will be a disaster. Thus, PanderAl Gore will probably be appointed dem candidate. But, there is always Hillie. She and her sewer dwellers may decide the risk of losing against Bush in 2004 is less than trying to salvage enough of the party to even make a try in 2008 against a new Republican>

Have I forgotten any of the major constituents of the great party of Torricelli, Dashole, and Clinton?

[Petronski]

Mark Morford's had more bones buried in him than Forest Lawn cemetary.

[Happy2BMe]

Sean Hannity is covering much of this story now . . .

Hear if LIVE now on Sean Hannity.com

[Happy2BMe]

"Of course, on the dem side are 95% of blacks, all of Hollywood, most faggots, most criminals (some dificulty voting), most illegal Mexicans, Jamaicans, Haitians (very heavy voting groups), lots of Chinese cash, most college/university professors (unless there is a communist or socialist on the ballor), most union members/officials making more than one million dollars a year, most traitors, all America-haters, and all those who believe there are already too many Roman Catholics on the federal bench."

Oh - you must be talking about . .

BILL AND HILLARY BACK IN THE HIPPY FLOWERCHILD COLLEGE DAYS

This is the 'Dude' who said he never inhaled!!!!!

[Search4Truth]

"Mark Morford's had more bones buried in him than Forest Lawn cemetary."

LMAO

[VRWC_minion]

First, the number of electoral votes are greater for the same states. Second, if the underlying voters are switching from rat to GOP this means the old polls may not reflect this new mix. Third, this assumes static numbers. If there is movement from one party to another it may continue and be even larger by next year.

[VRWC_minion]

because Republicans are more likely to vote than Democrats.

Unless they are dead or nonresidents.

[Califelephant]

All we have to worry about is Soros giving so much cash to the Dems.

[JustAnAmerican]

Actually what this means is that Independents will decide who wins the next race/races. Core voters are still neck and neck numerically speaking, while most Independents are made up of disgruntled Republicans and Dems. I would be willing to bet that Independents will outnumber both Parties within the next decade. Politicians would do well to remember that.

[Redbob]

"As the Democrat party gets smaller, it becomes more liberal, elitist, and angry," Gillespie wrote."

And shrill.
Don't forget 'shrill!'

[MeekOneGOP]

Looks like GREAT NEWS for Bush and Republicans in general to me !!

Thanks for the post and ping, Happy2BMe ! ...

Red America: How Bush will likely beat his 537-vote "landslide."
(BIG SWEAT for Democrats)

Excerpt:

In Minnesota, for example, Democrats used to enjoy a 31-26 advantage in party identification. Now, it's 31-28 in favor of Republicans. In 2000, Bush lost the state by about 58,000 votes out of 2.4 million cast.

Next time around, with more Republicans, he might do better.

In Michigan, Democrats used to enjoy a 33-26 advantage. Now it's 31-29 in favor of Republicans. In 2000, Bush lost the state by about 217,000 votes out of 4.2 million cast.

In Iowa, Democrats used to enjoy a 32-27 advantage. Now, it's 34-27 in favor of the Republicans. In 2000, Bush lost the state by about 4,000 votes out of 1.3 million cast.

In Wisconsin, Democrats used to enjoy a 33-29 advantage. Now, it's 30-29 in favor of the Republicans. In 2000, Bush lost by about 6,000 votes out of 2.6 million cast.

Those are the states that have turned over. In some other states that Bush lost narrowly, Democrats maintain their edge — just less so.

For example, in New Mexico, Democrats used to enjoy a 40-30 advantage. Now, it's 39-35. In 2000, Bush lost by just 366 votes.

< snip >

... According to Pew, red states have indeed gotten redder, but blue states have gotten redder, too. Even the bluest of the blues, such as California, are a bit less so than a few years ago.

Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my General Interest ping list!. . .don't be shy.

[Redbob]

Reagan was never a "neo-con," that weird animal that can't decide what it wants to be.

Shoot, a liberal 40 years ago would BE a conservative today!

[Redbob]

Among other things, we need to really get out the vote here in Texas.
Three years ago, there were large numbers of Republicans here who didn't bother to vote because it was obvious that Dubya was going to carry his home state - and because the election is NOT DECIDED ON THE POPULAR VOTE.

I've seen estimates that he could easily have gotten an additional half million votes here, possibly many more.

[MeekOneGOP]

ROFL !!! Now aren't they the happy looking couple ?? lol!

Yeah, he never inhaled alright ... just like he never had sex with that woman ...

[Dan from Michigan]

In Michigan, Democrats used to enjoy a 33-26 advantage. Now it's 31-29 in favor of Republicans. In 2000, Bush lost the state by about 217,000 votes out of 4.2 million cast.

I'm confused here.
1. Michigan does not register votes by party(since around 92). That was ruled unconstitutional at the state level and why we have either caucuses or open primaries.

2. Did all these votes come from new registrants or donor rolls? I know we had a voter registration signup at the GOP booth at a county event.

3. Did they take this estimate from the Cox and Land races down the ticket in 02?

Anyone know the answer?

[Dan from Michigan]

He won Missouri, West VA, and Ohio, as well as New Hampshire.

[Dan from Michigan]

Republicans are more likely to vote than Democrats.

I'm not so sure anymore.

[watermen]

I've wondered recently why the republicans are red and the democrats are blue. ( as seen in election results )
It seems that the republicans were always blue on the maps.
Have I not been paying attention or are they switched now and then?
I always thought that when I saw a democrat win a state and it turned red that it was appropiate, commie red.