Posted on 05/18/2012 7:55:36 PM PDT by neverdem
Last week, I wrote a piece suggesting that Mitt Romney's path to the presidency wasn't necessarily narrow. Rather, the breadth of that path will depend on "environmental" factors that could ultimately push him well past the 286 electoral vote ceiling that has seemingly been imposed upon the Republican party since 1992.
On the other hand, Ron Brownstein suggests that this ceiling is an outgrowth of demography and changing coalitions, and is largely etched into our electoral map. This has created a “blue wall” consisting of “the 11 states from Maryland to Maine (except New Hampshire); the three West Coast states; and Michigan, Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Hawaii (plus the District of Columbia).”
While Republicans fared well in these states from 1968 through 1988, since 1992 the increase in the minority population and the movement of Northern suburbs toward the Democrats has, according to Brownstein, placed these states out of reach for the party of Lincoln.
So which is it -- bad luck in the overall playing field, or have a substantial number of states moved irrevocably toward Democrats?
As it turns out, we can test these hypotheses fairly easily. And, as it also turns out, the truth is “a bit of both.”
What we can do is control for any “national effects” by looking at the states’ Partisan Voting Index, or PVI, over the past few elections (I’ve chosen 1980 through 2008 in order to capture trends that started pre-1992).
As a refresher, PVI tells us how a state votes compared to the country as a whole. In other words, Reagan won Massachusetts with 51 percent of the vote in 1984. Someone unfamiliar with American politics might therefore have labeled Massachusetts a swing state. But of course, Reagan was winning nationally with 59 percent of the vote that year, in...
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Vote for Virgil Goode!!!! Only conservative running this round. Throw the two liberals down the drain.
Here’s another article about that so-called “Blue Wall,” regarding big states and urban states which have drifted way to the left due to demographic changes, and wondering if current circumstances give Republicans an opening. Incidentally, responders to the last “blue wall” thread complained about the color scheme assigned to the parties, and they are correct. Historically, red is the color of the authoritian political left.
That aside, the three most important swing states are Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.
I wonder whether Mitt might have a chance in WI this year.
It will be interesting to see how well Scott Walker does in a few weeks.
Yes, blue used to be the color for Republicans. The mainstream media made a conscientious effort to change all the historical electoral maps from red for Democrats to red for Republicans. (Look what happened at Wikipedia.)
If you look at Time or Newsweek magazines from the 1980s, you will see the original colors.
On the other hand if you look at the data the way I would (looking for factions or part of factions slipping from one major party to another over time), that is, in fact, what we see.
An astute analyst interested in making an awful lot of money as an accurate prognosticator would go find out what the identity is of the factions moving from one party to another within the states where that partisanship indicator has moved off the baseline.
Here's a thought for some smart young whippersnapper to jump on. Louisiana has been drifting Republican ~ and that's obviously because Southern White Catholic voters (onliest kind they gots eh) in Louisiana are voting Republican more often. But Katrina happened ~ and before that event many African Americans around the country found New Orleans to be a really great place to relocate their elders ~ good food, great climate (for AAs), great access to high quality medical treatment, and, best of all, some of the least expensive decent housing in America.
Is the current rejustment an echo of Katrina? Or are African Americans who move there from out of state actually voting Republican to a greater degree than the folks who've lived there all their lives?
I seem to remember them switching every election cycle. One year red for dems and blue for repubs, then the opposite next time.
In the real world, which I live in, exactly one of Mitt Romney and Bork Obunga is going to be president of the US from 2013 to at least 2016. I believe the nation could easily survive four or even eight years of Romney; I cannot picture any nation surviving eight years of Bork Obunga. Doing anything other than supporting Romney is basically trying to get Bork Obunga re-elected.
I mean, I like fantasy worlds as much as the next guy but I don't LIVE in one of them...
And the DumbKopfs at the RNC were just fine with it, even changed the wallpaper at GOP.COM to bright commie red.
Pretty much tells you all you need to know about the GOP.
I’m done arguing with these people. Over this. It’s ABO!
heck, I would vote for madoff over Obama!
I’m done arguing with these people. Over this. It’s ABO!
Same here. I’m done.
How's that slippery slope working for ya?........picking up speed now?
How is Obama working out for you?
Wisconsin will be in play too this time...especially after the Walker victory on June 5. It’s going to fire up both the GOP and the Union thugs.
Actually, there are many conservatives running for ‘12 POTUS from a variety of minor political parties as well as Independent runs, and I’m not including Libertarian Gary Johnson or any other Libertarians/libertarians. It’s just that Virgil Goode has the largest number of supporters, among all of the remaining conservative candidates running for ‘12 POTUS.
You responded :
Historically, red is the color of the authoritian political left.
Yes, blue used to be the color for Republicans”.
That was the way it was when I began marking my sundry precincts polling sheets with plusses, blue for Republican, and Red for minuses democrats, begining with Goldwater’s run. My hard cards (lists of registered voters) in BTW Chicago) were always marked that way.
Because of campaign costs where campaign workers would get some “walking around money” to defray their expences. With the advent of TV. Statwide camapigns relied less on personal contact and more on “media” . With that also the reliance on polling. A good precinct worker used to get feed back on various issues and relay that back to the candidates running for office.
With that increased reliance on “media” the socialists controlling the media learned very quickly they could manipulate the issues which is what we’re wittnessing today. Hence todays campaigns when they rely on that feedback..... don’t get it.
Because they are responding to what the meda created not with what the way Joe Sixpack is really concerned with.
Come back to earth. Goode is a former democRat congressman. He’s center-left at best. Definitely not conservative.
I recall reading that blue was used for the incumbent party candidate and red was for the challenger. Gore in 2000 was blue because Democrats were the incumbent at the time. The 2000 election had so much intense focus on the map and the visual was so clear about sectional divides that “red states” and “blue states” was born and we’ll probably live with it forever.
The mainstream media wanted to de-couple the color “red” from the Dem’s because their communist socialist policies were seen as “communist red” at the time. Psychological befuddlement was the goal; the need was to try to shift the paradigms to slow the growth of conservatism. Citing conservatives as the “red party” may peal some voters away who associate the color “red” with evil and death!
I ain’t vote en for Romney. No way, no how.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.