Bush Democrats: A detailed look at last year's voting suggests big Republican opportunities.

Opinion Journal ^ | 4/4/05 | John Fund

[Crackingham]

A treasure trove of data on the meaning of the 2004 presidential election has just been released, and you can bet that if reporters don't look at it carefully, strategists for potential candidates will. The 2004 election numbers may explain why Hillary Clinton is taking care to present herself as a centrist.

While we vote for president in local precincts and then see the election results reported by state and county, the way to get a feeling for the underlying trends of an election is to wait for the results to be broken down into the nation's 435 congressional districts. Only a handful of states adequately compile presidential election results by congressional districts. That's why political junkies appreciate the efforts of Polidata, a database firm run by Clark Bensen, which just spent months collecting precinct-level data from local officials and belatedly giving a fresh perspective on how George W. Bush assembled his winning coalition.

In 2000, Mr. Bush carried 228 congressional districts to Al Gore's 207 on his way to one of the closest victories in American history. This year Mr. Bush carried 255 congressional districts, nearly six in 10. The number of "turnover" districts--those voting for a House member of one party and a presidential candidate of the other--continues to shrink, mostly due to the growth of straight-ticket voting and gerrymandering. There were only 59 such districts in 2004, compared with 86 in 2000 and 110 when Bill Clinton beat Bob Dole in 1996.

The best chances for Democrats to gain the 15 seats they need to take control of the House in 2006 are in these districts held by "Kerry Republicans." The problem is that there are so few of them. John Kerry carried just 18 GOP House members' districts, while Mr. Bush carried 41 Democratic ones.

[Yossarian]

There may not have been many "Kerry Republican" districts, because John Kerry was a traitorous aggrandizing gigolo ass.

What we Republicans have to worry about is "Bayh Republican" or similar districts. I think (hope/pray) that the country is smart enough to see through the Hildabeast's posturing.

(By the way, do we know who came up with the name "Hildabeast?" It's sweet, and fits her all so well....)

[68skylark]

A close look at the Congressional district results from last year is convincing many Democrats that a move to the middle may be more than a smart media strategy. It may be a matter of political survival.

What does "move to the middle" mean to a liberal? I guess it means talking a moderate game in the hopes of masking a radical, anti-American, left-wing agenda. It might work, too!

[68skylark]

I can't tell if you're really concerned about Evan Bayh or not. It's smart to avoid underestimating a foe. But honestly, I don't think Bayh would be much of a "foe" for any number of Republican candidates -- he's not that strong a candidate.

[RWR8189]

Of the potential Dem nominees mentioned, the only one that concerns me is Mark Warner, governor of Virginia.

I don't think he would have a shot in hell at the nomination, but he would be a very formidable general election candidate.

Much of Bayh's popularity in Indiana is due to his dad.

[TXBubba]

Can't answer your question. But I prefer the "shewhomustnotbenamed" one more.

[LasVegasMac]

because John Kerry was a traitorous aggrandizing gigolo ass

I gather you voted the 'other way' ?

Just kidding.

The effort to expose the "Hildabeast's" current efforts to 'look' more palatable to voters needs to be exposed now - at the grass roots level - and hammered on for the next several years.

You say Kerry was a "traitorous, aggrandizing ass" (I agree), but what does that make the wicked witch from Ark New York ?

You are correct, and that is my worst nightmare come true: is the average voter smart enough to see through her 'new and improved' veil?

LVM

[Yossarian]

What I'm getting at isn't Bayh in particular (from what I know, he doesn't have a great dynamic presence).

Rather, I'm worried about the scenario where the Dems pick one of the few members they have with a legitimate centrist background. They just might rally around such a candidate, with the idea that once elected, he/she will give cover to the true nutburger leftists in Congress. He'd owe them favors, and they'd use them.

How many of these "swing" districts were affected by all of Kerry's liabilities? If those liabilities weren't there, would we have won Ohio?

The Dems have been making it easy with their last two candidates. Maybe they'll wise up and make a real run of it next time.

(Yes, unlikely given how crazy the Dem base is. But not all of them are stupid.)

[Malesherbes]

I agree. Bayh reminds me of a character out of a F. Scott Fitzgerald novel. A little too handsome, a little too empty.

[Cicero]

I believe that Bush drew upon the same Democrats that Ronald Reagan drew on to craft his victory. They are, essentially, social conservatives and patriots, ordinary men and women who are turned off by abortion, perversion, and treason.

[Vigilanteman]

"The Hispanics who voted for George Bush largely reject identity politics and simply want to be respected, rather than pandered to,"

What's more, this group earned their respect rather than demanded it. Karl Rove needs to get acquainted with these Americans of Hispanic background.

[CPT Clay]

bump for later

[longtermmemmory]

Why are they called Reagan Democrats or Bush Democrats, the implication being that they will never change party affiliation or that the change is only temporary.

Hence the newe phenomenon of "kerry republicans"? no bloody likely. I know this is opinion journal but I think it uses terms that are too PC and too shaped for hitlary.

Whay next Hitlary Republicans? I bet that will be the next story with a tissue thin arguement for a so called trend.