How Does the Electoral Map Change on Tuesday?

Whether it is as largely expected on Tuesday with the Messiah descending upon 1600 or if McCain pulls out a miracle, the electoral map is likely to change in subtle but significant ways that set up 2012 and 2016 and dictate our opportunity states in the years to come.

This is a post about relative change, not absolutes. Obama is likely to do better than John Kerry in every single state, even Kentucky and West Virginia that shellacked him so in the primaries. This is simply the national atmospherics and the political environment. "The map" does not dictate his ability to win or lose. It only dictates what order he wins those states in. We sometimes focus on "the map" to the detriment of everything else. But in reality, any topline outcome is possible given the right environment. And if you doubt it, just remember that a guy with the middle name of Hussein could pick off one or two Deep South states on his way to the White House.

What "the map" does dictate is the shape of our coalition and what states we target moving forward. The 2004 result gave Democrats reason to hope about Virginia and Colorado, hopes that will possibly by realized on Tuesday. Win or lose, Tuesday will be an opportunity to gauge which states are moving in and out of our orbit. And thanks to the plethora of state polling, we have a better idea in advance of which states are becoming more or less Republican relative to the rest of the country.

Here is the map, with bluer being the stronger pro-Obama swing:

Not surprisingly, this correlates very well to the Clinton-Obama primary map, with Obama's strong performances in the mountain West and the Southeastern seabord translating to stronger swings in his direction in the general. Likewise, look at him struggling (this is a relative term) in the same Appalachian states he got killed in in the primary -- from Tennessee to Ohio to Kentucky to West Virginia.

Going region by region:

The Northeast: In New England, Obama's biggest standout state is New Hampshire, a haven for the highly educated. He struggled in this region overall in the primaries, though I don't probably buy that he has backslid in MA and RI despite the past nominee being from MA. These are such Democratic states that just allocating undecideds puts him a stronger position. Obama's gains in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut are pretty strong, and probably the result of abnormally high votes for President Bush after 9/11.

The Mid-Atlantic: The weak swing to Obama in Pennsylvania could be Appalachia / Hillary voters (fwiw, I really want to see what Obama gets in Northeast and South Philly) or it could just be the psychological effect of being targeted -- I think Florida (2000) and Ohio (2004) voted differently because they were so intensely targeted. Obama was up a lot more here a  few weeks ago. Delaware will obviously swing heavily because of Biden. I think the MD numbers are bogus because of a lack of polling. West Virginia will see possibly the country's most tepid swing to Obama given its primary vote.

The Coastal South: Virginia and North Carolina are the big stories here: rising urban centers in Northern Virginia, Richmond, Raleigh and Charlotte bringing in Northern transplants plus good-sized black populations. NC will look like VA looked the last election in its partisan orientation. This isn't bad long-term if we are distributing Republican votes more efficiently. We shouldn't mind a VA and NC that are a few points to the right of the country if they're sucking in Democrats from places like PA, OH, and NJ and making these states more competitive. In VA especially, we just need to make sure our local candidates adjust to this new reality.

I'm surprised the Obama wave seems to be bypassing heavily black South Carolina -- probably the state that set him on the path to victory, but a lack of a major urban magnet probably explains it. Georgia, which has Atlanta, is swinging more heavily towards Obama -- watch what Cobb and Gwinnett do.

Florida really doesn't belong in this category, but is swinging a bit less than the national average for Obama -- which combined with 2004's stronger Republican tilt is making it a Lean R state on the Presidential level -- though that's probably not enough this time. Still, who would have thought in 2000 that we'd be talking about FL being with a point or two of NC? 

The Interior South: I expect the Alabama numbers to swing more for Obama as they do in Mississippi but both states are seriously out of reach. Tennessee and Kentucky are safe for McCain. Louisiana has seen some favorable trends overall, and seems to be at the center of a new arc of Republican strength that stretches from Texas through West Virginia. Looking at this map, it's clear that there's a pocket of Republican strength in the central South that wasn't there in the '90s when Arkansan Bill Clinton was winning all these states.

The Big Ten States: Ohio is one of the few true tossup states from 2004 where McCain still sports a lead in some polls. This is another state, like Florida in 2000, whose permanent descent into tossup status may have been a blip, and it now belongs where it was in the '90s, a measure or two to the right of the country. I expect Obama to perform very poorly in southern Ohio and this will drag down his numbers statewide, but I still expect him to win it. Michigan, without Appalachian influences, is sporting an about-average swing to Obama -- I wonder what this would have been had McCain not pulled out. Indiana still seems implausible to me -- it is one of the two or three strongest pro-Obama swings in the country, and the only one with more than 3 or 4 EVs. Perhaps this is it being a neighbor of Illinois, but Obama didn't do that well in the primary, so I expect McCain to outperform the polls by 3 or 4 points here and win the state by that number. The Land of Lincoln we will probably lose by 25-30 points. Wisconsin was always off the table because of Obama's strong support there in the primaries and same-day voter registration, and probably the same goes for Minnesota. The strong pro-Obama swing in Iowa is a bit more easily explained than Indiana, given that it was the launching pad for his nomination and its closeness to Illinois. Finally, Missouri -- a much more rural state than people give it credit for -- is proving to be the toughest nut to crack for Obama of all the swing states.

The Prairie States. Obama's strength here -- virtually neutralizing MT, ND and possibly the Omaha CD in NE is an extension of his strength in the primaries, when he built a coalition of multiracial Southern states and all-white caucus states without the racial strife that defined much of the industrial North and Midwest. Kansas and Oklahoma have a bit more conventionally Christian and Southern influences to be wholly part of this tradition. But the area is so sparsely populated that though the shift is interesting, its magnitude pales in comparison to shifts elsewhere.

The Mountain West: For all the hoopla about Colorado, its swing to Obama barely outshines the national average at 10.2%, but we will await the results for further clarity. Obama turns in some of his strongest gains relative to 2004 in the strongly Republican states of Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, and Utah. It will be interesting to see if Obama can crack into well-educated Utah Mormons at all, but it is hard to see where this electorally actionable for the Democrats. Still, it is interesting to see the extent to which the GOP has been un-defined as a Western party despite the presence of a Western Senator on the ticket. I do think the "Texas Cowboy" image is what kept us so strong here for so long, and a Phoenix transplant is not quite tapping into it the same way.

The Southwest: This is McCain's home region, but it isn't doing him a whole lot of good. He is being forced to defend Arizona, with a swing that's only 3 points less than the national average. And he's only doing about a point better than he should be in Nevada and New Mexico. It's ironic because immigration was supposed to be a huge strength for McCain. Instead, his weakness on it with the base has forced him to largely shut up on the issue, dampening his ability to use it as a wedge issue with Hispanics and keep the Southwest in play.

The West: For a long time, it looked like California wasn't going to swing much at all for Obama, but now he appears headed to a 20-24 point win here. Nor is there much to see in Oregon or Washington. Alaska was probably going as strongly in the direction of Obama as the mountain West before Palin was picked. And yes, I was a little stunned too to see Hawaii -- which was actually in play in '04, had two polls with a 35%+ Obama lead. To understand this, you probably have to appreciate the extent to which he was a celebrity here before running for President. I was on vacation there when Obama had his 2006 dustup with McCain over ethics reform -- and because it was Obama it led the evening news.

I'll probably do a post for each of these regions breaking down what actually happened county by county after the election. But in the meantime, what do you think?

0
Your rating: None

Comments

Nice post

We're going to have to wait until Tuesday to get the real results, but this is a good start.

There might not be any state that McCain does better in than Bush, but if we look at the relative trend and compare that, we could get a better idea.  Our best relative area is going to be Appalachia.  Our worst is going to be Indiana, North Carolina, and a few upper Plains states.  There likely hasn't been a more consistently Republican state going back to 1854 than Indiana.  I would eat my proverbial hat if we lost it.  When I did my Big Ten Strategy back in the summer, I didn't even include Indiana because I thought it was so far out of reach.  I would be bitterly disappointed if we lost it.

It's in the West.

 The Republicans need to become the party of the West again; now is the perfect time for them to reposition themselves as such. Westerners are naturally inclined to distrust Washington, in part because of their geological distance, and in part because of the natural cultural differences between the West coast and the East coast; even in California, which is as East-coastey as you can get in the West, there is a lack of the elitism that is on the East coast (though there is a different sort of elitism… but that is another story). Obama is the perfect president to become a contrast to – educated in the elite Eastern schools. Pelosi is a supplanted easterner – her dad was a congressman from Maryland and mayor of Baltimore, and Reid… well, Reid has his own problems.

So what the Republicans need to do is drop the social conservatism from their national platform, and return to federalist principals of states’ rights and local self determination. A fiscal moderate or conservative who might otherwise be inclined to vote Republican can easily be scared away by the Republicans in Washington trying to ban gay marriage, or abortion. The Republicans need to assert, as McCain has (though unconvincingly), that social issues need to be left up to the states. Local Republican parties can do whatever they want – if South Dakota wants to ban abortion, the South Dakotan GOP should feel free to back them, but the National party should take no stance. This plays to the median voter theory well, as social conservatives will vote for states’ rights as better than what the Democrats offer, and moderate voters who are fiscally conservative would also be able to support this platform.

The Republicans need to stick to the same message on fiscal issues as well; get away from the NCLB, etc, with the message “who knows how to fix the problems in our schools better; Washington politicians who are 2000 miles away, or us, who know the teachers and the children involved in the schools…” Replace schools with seniors, etc, and it seems to me like you have a winning message.

This party would be strong in the West, but also the South, which (for some reason) distrusts Washington. Obama will run stronger in the South and Midwest than the average Democrat would, but if the Republican Party reforms itself it could be very competitive South of DC and West of Illinois. The Northeast and Eastern-Midwest would remain Democrat, as they seem quite fond of free money from the Taxpayers.

 

View from the left

My politics are left, not right, grew up in California and now live in New England.  I think the basic point of this post is very astute.  I hope the GOP is slow in coming around to it, but I don't think it will be, and it's what I'd be most on guard against if I ran the DNC.  One caveat: the GOP should tread cautiously in trying to isolate the "elitism" of the east coast from the west coast.  The east coast is more about education than the west, which is more about economic mobility (and looking good), but the anti-intellectual strain in today's GOP that seems to come from Southern culture (faith) will continue to turn off the libertarian west.  True, the latter doesn't see education as the be all end all, but it does see it as a very important part of the road to economic success.  For the GOP to renew it's competitiveness in suburbia, what'll work in the west will mostly work in the east, and vice versa. 

Views from the left

This site is swimming in them. And, as a general rule, they are rather useless.

E.g - the anti-intellectual strain in today's GOP that seems to come from Southern culture (faith) will continue to turn off the libertarian west

The GOP has no more of a  "anti-intellectual strain" than does the Democratic Party. How intellectual are you if you believe in left-wing politics after the results of the 20th century? Just how intellectual is the typical Dem politician?

Secondly, there is no "libertarian west", unless you define libertarianism as meaning "hostile to religion". Many people do define it that way of course, but they are obviously part of that anti-intellectual faction you were decrying.

I'm not saying that all left-wing views have no value here, but the rote recitation of talking points adds nothing to the debate.

 

 

 

I couldn't agree more

with this:

the rote recitation of talking points adds nothing to the debate

Reserving judgment, I think that regarding anti-intellectualism, the poster is referring to issues like intelligent design, climate change rejection and a tendency to reject rather than embrace modern culture and science as a default.

By libertarian tendencies of the Mountain West, I think the poster was referring to the values of independence, self-reliance and rejection of the Federal gov't which some would argue are particularly strongly and consciously held in that region.

"self reliance"

There is precious little evidence to support the notion that the mountain-west is populated by people who display the traits you mention. I suspect you're been reading too much Sager.
 

Incorrigible

It must feel great to have all the answers, Jon.

Sad

That's an impressive array of facts you marshalled there in support of your contention.

The myth of the libertarian west is one of the biggest political unicorns in American politics. The regions stubborn refusal to live up to it's billing never seems to disturb the myth n the least though.

Here's a fact for you. The states in the mountan west receive a greater than averge degree of Federal money, on a per capita basis. Much more than the South, for instance.

 

 

 The Mountain West states

 The Mountain West states receive a higher percentage of federal money because of a few things that they don't control; namely, their size (more roads), and the fact that the West has a huge chunk of their land owned by the feds - For example 65%+ in Idaho, Nevada, Utah, Alaska... who do you think pays to upkeep that land? 

I haven't seen a study, but I would bet that, adjusting for these factors, there would be less money sent to the Mountain West than average.
 

Well, you'd be wrong.

I haven't seen a study, but I would bet that  .....

It might be wise to dig up your study before making the statements which you did. Because you're wrong. Arizona, for instance, is one of the leading states on the Medicaid bandwagon.

 

You can also look at the politicians those rugged individualists are electing. For instance, CATO grades the natons governors each year, and the mountain west governors consistently get below average marks. Or look at the Senators being elected to Congress from those states, e.g Larry Craig. I repeat, there is darn little evidence to support the theory that the mountain west is unusually fiscally conservative. If you disagree, show me the data.

 

 

 

It's not a claim of fact

Jon,

I did not mean to suggest that the Mountain West states are, in fact, paragons of independent self-reliance. I said that they have a strong affinity for those values and identify with that image. I'm quite conversant with the ironies of the urban cowboy in his pickup truck, hat and boots.

As for which states profit in exchange with the Feds, it is well-known that red states by and large receive more from the Feds than they contribute in tax dollars and the blue states generally less. In fact, from the Tax Policy Foundation in 2005 the top 10 recipients were:

New Mexico
Mississippi
Louisiana
Alaska
West Virginia
North Dakota
Alabama
South Dakota
Kentucky
Virginia

So, in point of fact it would appear the South is doing quite well.

Image

I think we can agree that peple in the West may indeed have that image of themselves.

it is well-known that red states by and large receive more from the Feds than they contribute in tax dollars and the blue states generally less.

It is well known, though I don't see the the connection to the topic of libertarians in the mountain west. I notice that it does not dampen the eagerness of the blue states to increase taxes on themselves.

 

Merely responding to your comment

Viz:

The states in the mountan west receive a greater than averge degree of Federal money, on a per capita basis. Much more than the South, for instance.

Not clear to me that the "Much more than the South" part holds up.

Wow

Guess I touched a nerve.  On anti-intellectualism, here's a line from the post I replied to:

Obama is the perfect president to become a contrast to – educated in the elite Eastern schools

I'm assuming that going to an Ivy is to be used as a foil in electoral politics, a la Bush-style and Palin-style self-presentation, not to rule out the Ross Douthats and Jon Robertses of conservatism.  Now, maybe you prefer "anti-elitism" or "anti-credentialism" or what have you.  The first is imprecise (there's different versions of elitism just as there's different versions of populism).  The second is probably more to the point, and on that score, I'm not arguing that the right doesn't have a point (I think it does, as I kinda hate the strain of educational credentialism on the left), just that it's a fine line between that and Bush/Palin-style politicking.  And if you think that the latter is strictly anti-credentialism and has nothing to do with certain strain of pro-faith/anti-intellectual outlook, well, rather than argue that point, I'll be content to hope the GOP agrees with you about the uselessness of my two cents and keeps it up. 

BTW, the poster below interprets (very reasonably) my anti-int label as referring to specific policies, and/or a certain attitude toward modernity and naturalism.  But I didn't have policy positions in mind; the attitude thing is a little closer, though grander than what I had in mind, which was mainly a style of politicking. 

How intellectual are you if you believe in left-wing politics after the results of the 20th century?

"results of the 20th century" and "left-wing politics" are such broad categories, there's really no way to respond without a more precise question.  Compare: How intellectual are you if you believe in right-wing politics after the results of the 17th century?  Anyway, these days, the US tilts right, Europe tilts left, and arguing over which model is preferable is something for reasonable intellectuals to disagree about. 

Just how intellectual is the typical Dem politician?

Not much at all.  However, you don't need to be "intellectual" to not be "anti-intellectual".  There are tons of politicians, Dem and Rep, who are neither.  Meaning that going to Harvard isn't necessarily something to trumpet or contrast with.  That's all to the good, in my view.  Maybe to get an idea of where I'm coming from, think about a brand of Dem politician who seems not merely sympathetic to the interests of labor, but downright anti-ownership and management.  You don't have to be the latter in order to be the former. 

As for western libertarianism, the poster below describes mountain west lib well, though as I indicated I had in mind coastal west lib, something along the lines of Silicon Valley libertarianism, which emphasizes business success and wealth building more than the more modest materialism of the mtn west, and is both economically and socially libertarian, and which I've found in healthy amount on both coasts.  Neither is "hostile to religion", but neither is hostile to valuing an elite education, either. 

You crack me up.

How intellectual are you if you believe in right-wing politics after the results of the 17th century? 

 

If you're going to show up here and pretend to be a politically savvy intellectual you might want to bone up on some basic political theory. Or pre-basic political theory. By general consensus the political movement we now call "conservatism" began in the last decade of the 18th century, with the writings of Edmund Burke.

 

I'm assuming that going to an Ivy is to be used as a foil in electoral politics, a la Bush-style and Palin-style self-presentation

 

Bush is an Ivy League grad. I'm going to make a big assumption and guess that you don't regard him as being a true intellectual. And I'd agree, and say the same is true for the vast majority of such people. Including Obama. And what on earth is your hang-up with Palin?

 

think about a brand of Dem politician who seems not merely sympathetic to the interests of labor, but downright anti-ownership and management.  You don't have to be the latter in order to be the former. 

You don't have to be. And yet, they all are. Including your presidental candidate. (With the exception of the businessmen who fund the Democratic Party. No favor is too great for those worthies.)

 

these days, the US tilts right, Europe tilts left,

You're living in the past.

 

both economically and socially libertarian

There is no such thing in practice. Where are all the politicans fro CA who are both economically and socially libertarian? Pelosi? Boxer? Feinstein? They are socially and economically on the left.

 

Silicon Valley libertarianism

That's an interesting way to describe liberalism. Here's a news flash - wanting to become filthy rich, even becoming flthy rich,  is not incompatible with liberalism and socialism. As I said above, you're living in the past.

 It've very clear to me, reading the coments of many young Democrtatic party supporters, that they don't have the foggies idea of the sort of people they're backing. A lot of people are in for a pretty nasty shock.

 

Best of luck

Ok, I think I'm starting to get a feel for your take on things.  Here's hoping the direction the GOP goes from here is one you're really enthusiastic about. 

Thanks.

I'm 100% certain that the Dem party will not go in any direction that a libertarian will want. After all - I'm a libertarian myself.

 

 

 In no way should the GOP

 In no way should the GOP become anti-intellectual; rather, it should become anti-pedigree. If the GOP were to become more anti-intellectual, then it would have no way to win California or Colorado.

These is a big difference between Western industry and Eastern industry, as the West tends to be the launching grounds for the novus homo more. Eastern and Midwesten industry/manufacturing will increasingly require subsidies to thrive, and the party which opposes these is likely to lose them.

What do the points in your second and third paragraphs

have to do with giving up on entire regions of the country? 

 Because if the Republicans

 Because if the Republicans remain the party of National-Social-Conservatism, they immidiately give up the West coast. The Republicans succeed when they brand themselves the party of freedom, and I have heard it said over and over by Republican Pundits (while the Democrats are the 'Party of Justice'. Their message falls flat if they offer contradicting views ('state control of schools!' 'National ban on gay marraige!'). 

The Party of Freedom can win in the West, but the Party of Qualified Freedom cannot.

I must also admit that I like to ramble, and the more I talk the further I get away from the main point.

Fortress strategies v. adding market share

One problem the GOP has is that since 2004 it decided it had reached its "high water mark" and stopped doing useful recruiting and party building in the Blue States. The 2006 cycle was virtually all fought defending GOP seats; this year is little different.

Hence, with the exception of McCain's all-in bet in PA, this battle is all being fought on our side of the 2004 line of scrimmage. It's hard to win when you are dealing with a political version of the "Brezhnev doctrine"---"what's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable".  This also allows even a less funded opponent to throw everything into trying to pick off just OH or FL and reverse the 2000 result wherein we are on the short end of the stick that matters--the electoral vote.    

This also brings up another all concept of the Cold War "quantity is its own quality"   Opening field offices in states like North Dakota was a hideously inefficient use of campaign resources for Obama, but obviously, price was no object.  If you are willing to invest heavily in field early knowing that half of the money is going to be wasted, you are prepared to contest states when the political winds shift in your direction.

We need to think about gaining the necessary campaign resources to build things back up in the Blue States.  I'm tired of hearing 'they are losing electoral votes, so don't worry".  That theory went out the window when NC turned into a swing state.  

I totatly agree with that.

We need to challenge the blue states more, they are dying off specifically because they are bastions of Democrat polices.  They are anti-growth, anti-business, pro-union corruption, and pro-welfare state.  We need to challenge them as to why they think these polices are so helpful to them when clearly their economies are dying.

I also agree with the comment about being pro-western party.  This area is the most likely to be libertarian leaning and thus most receptive to our economic message.  We need to remind them that social issues mean whole a lot since (as I have said elsewhere on this blog) government has no real interest in our private lives but sure loves to control our economic lives much to our detriment.

There used to be a shoe factory, in Millersville

There used to be coal mining in Uniontown.

Pittsburgh is doing just fine, but Homestead has problems.

I'm sorry, but you sound utterly illiterate as to the nature of America's wealth and taxbase, which comes from those blue cities who are happy to be taxed. And I'm getting this data from a Republican friend of mine, so it isn't Terribly Biased by it coming from a Democrat.

And your in denial!

The reality is that the rustbelt states are continuing to lose jobs and populations to Southern, Sunbelt and Mountain West satets.  Just look at the census trends of the last two decades.  Either you are simply rejecting the facts or you are an economic illiterate.

I agree with you.

The next big movement, if it comes, will be the boomer migration. If they can afford to move. The North East was at peak capacity (I know a demographer or two, neh?), of course it loses population to other places.

I was merely saying that the cities are disproportionately better off than the small towns in the region.

I'm not so sure as to what this has to do with the economy -- I believe it has more to do with taxation structures (move to cheap states when retire)

It's to fluid to predict

After four years of Democrats controlling congress and the White House, the country will probably move even more right than it was under Bush.      This political climate is too fluid to predict.   A lot has to do with Obama's ability to lead from the center.   With Pelosi and Reid in charge of the House and Senate, I'm not really sure he'll have an incentive.   I invite all of you to read EditorialSection.com

Ruining a great post at the start

As I've said before on this site, I'm a lefty democrat who tries to get a sense of the other side of the spectrum, and tries to keep an open mind.  The Next Right is a good place to do that; the writing is thoughtful, insightful, and fact centric for the most part.  This post would have fallen into that same category if you hadn't started with "the Messiah descending upon 1600"

It takes what would have been an otherwise well written post and turns it into right wingnut drivel.

 

Ditto that...

...with qualification.  Snark is everywhere in the blogs, left and right, so asking to do without it here is asking to take the self-indulgent fun out of political blogging.  The trick is to vent the snark, enjoy the emotional release, but not take it too seriously, on pain of misanalyzing the situation you face.  This applies to both left and right, of course. 

agreed

Youre absolutely right - sorry about the pun.

Snark is everywhere and it's too bad.  I'd say the same to my Lefty friends and comment on Lefty blogs.  It diminishes the dialog and dillutes the otherwise great points.

Take responsibility for your own.

It's your fellow Dems who began describing the Messiah in those terms. You can't really object to us mocking you for it.

 

so long as it is MOcking, and not serious

site was missing snark tag, and as a new reader, I missed it completely.

plz edit.

Hmm.

Why do I doubt that you were under the impresson that the author REALLY thought that Obama was the Messiah?

because you're missing my humor in the last post

the question wasn't whether the OP thinks that Obama is the Messiah -- it is whether he thinks that most Obama supporters (14% of whom switched from McCain) think that Obama is the Messiah (something that most Obama supporters would find offensive -- and I do in particular, being Jewish).

Immigration

It's ironic because immigration was supposed to be a huge strength for McCain. Instead, his weakness on it with the base has forced him to largely shut up on the issue, dampening his ability to use it as a wedge issue with Hispanics and keep the Southwest in play.

 

It would be wonderful if the myth that amnesty is the key to capturing the Hispanic vote could finally be buried, preferably with a stake driven through its black heart first.

As many people like to remind me, Reagan signed an amnesty back in 1986. What they prefer to ignore is that it did absolutely nothing for the GOP's share of the Hispanic vote. In fact, we lost ground among them.

If you really, REALLY want the Hispanic vote, then be prepared to do what the Democrat do to get it - buy it with very expensive and muli-generational transfer payments. Say what you will about Hispanics, but they're not going to sell themselves to the GOP for a wooden nickel.

 

Tell me about it!

And too many RINOs want to join the Democrats in order to help make their party a minority for decades to come.  Wehn you look at the failed, pro-Marxist politics of Latin America it is not hard to understand why hispanics love welfare, fraud, corruption, and the mod rule mentality.  They may have some social cosnervative leanings but they do not like limited government, they have a very racist, entitlement mentality that makes them very good prospects for the welfare state plantation of the Modern Democrat Party.

I Love It!

Why don't you say what you REALLY feel? <snark>

 Your comments are offensive and disgusting, and are only really interesting in that they represent, from Lou Dobbs on down, the reason why Hispanics have left the GOP for good.  Even in South Florida, where 2.7 Million Hispanics live, and where over 600K Cuban GOP votes for Bush were responsible for Bush even being in a position to bring the case for his election to the US Supreme Court, the Hispanic GOP is dying.  This cycle, even such Hispanic GOP stalwarts as the Diaz-Balart brothers and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, seats which were thought to be safe GOP against all odds, are pretty much lost.

Hispanics represent the largest, fastest-growing Minority in the US.  They are not stupid, and they are here to stay, amnesty or no amnesty.  Blacks are close behind, and are far ahead of Hispanics in reaching the Middle Class and the 3,000 square foot suburban homes which used to guarantee the GOP its majorities in Virginia, Georgia, North Carolina, and other growing states.

How far do you think the GOP and theNextRight will go with racist bigots in the drivers' seats?

 

 

blacks and hispanics still have TEN PERCENT

of the wealth of a white house, on average.

go read a bit, huh?

Black and Hispanic Incomes

Facts from the US Census Bureau:

http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf

 

$38,679
The median income of Hispanic households in 2007, which is 62 percent of the median
for non-Hispanic White households, $54,920, because many Hispanic families are first-generation immigrants struggling to get by.  But the median says there are also many Hispanic Middle-class families, and many who are top 10 percenters

3.3%
Percentage increase in the Hispanic population between July 1, 2006, and July 1, 2007, making Hispanics the fastest-growing minority group.

Triple
The rate of growth of Hispanic-owned businesses between 1997 and 2002 (31%) compared with the national average (10%) for all businesses.

$222 billion
Revenue generated by Hispanic-owned businesses in 2002, up 19% from 1997.

29,168
Number of Hispanic-owned firms with receipts of $1 million or more.

3.3 million
The number of Hispanics 18 and older who had at least a bachelor’s degree in 2007, up from 1.7 million a decade earlier.

811,000
Number of Hispanics 25 and older with advanced degrees in 2007 (e.g., master’s, professional, doctorate).

you display an astounding inability to read

black incomes are significantly closer to white incomes than

black wealth is to white wealth (again, we're talking averages here).

This comes from systematic discrimination, and has a profound effect on social mobility, in particular the pursuit of higher education and home ownership.

 

Thank you for playing, please find more stats on your own time (I think you might find these on myDD, actually, as I had more time a few months ago to pull stats)

I Can Read Just Fine

..but you, on the other hand, seem to have an inability to make a coherent point.

What point exactly are you trying to make?  In the context of theNextRight and the GOP? 

Specifically, are you saying that minorities, and of course they are way behind White households in both wealth and income, are MORE likely to go GOP in future as a result, or less?

My point, specifically, is that the growingly overt racism and bigotry in the base of the GOP (Borders, Language, Culture! The GOP represents REAL Americans!..etc.) has alienated minority participation in the GOP.

I'll make a stronger point

(and try to avoid tangents. heh)

1. Poorer demographics vote Democratic. Therefore it is to the Republican's self interest to make people rich.

2. Overt Racism is what lost the Republicans VA and Montana in '06. It would appear that many affluent voters don't like to vote for racist parties.

Obama is picking up a greater percentage of the white vote than previous democratic candidates, as well. It's interesting, isn't it? I think that should be analyzed just as much as the conservative African American vote.

This sums up The Next Right

Two loony lefties arguing with each other about how racist the GOP is.

 

 

I know!

This used to be a good site before the leftist zombie trolls starting  showing up with their so-called contributions.

No you are offensive.

My comments have nothing to do with Cubans.  Nor am I calling all hispanics stupid (although too many sure vote that way).

And by the way the black population has remained static.  That is why the Democrats are telling them to get to the back of the bus in favor of their new minority.

What a maroon!

the reason why Hispanics have left the GOP for good

Hispanics have not left the GOP. In oder to leave it they would once have had to be in it, and they never were. There has never, ever, been a time when Hispanics have not voted left-wing by a sizable margin.

Go peddle your racist garbage smewhere else.

How far do yo think the Democratic party will go with the racists in the drivers seat? As long as they can keep flooding the country with racist Hispanic voters, then a long way.

Demographic facts are stubborn things

As I have stated on numerous occasions here if we have decided we are going to exclusively appeal to voters of one race we are going to be irrelevant very soon no matter how much we care about issues that concern us.

I, for one, do not believe that conservative values and conservative politics have nothing to offer immigrants, Asians, hispanics, African-Americans, etc. It is simply not the case. What is the case is that the GOP has not made outreach to these populations a priority except for the efforts GWB made in 2000 and 2004.

As I'm sure you recall, GWB got over 40% of the hispanic vote in two consecutive elections in the 21st century. McCain is likely to get less than 30% of the hispanic vote. Bush won in 2000 and 2004; McCain is probably going to loose. Conservatives will not matter in national elections until we figure out how to broaden our coalition. We have acknowledge that we will ever again win a national majority with the coalition that elected Reagan.

The country is changing. We must accept that fact if we want to be part of any coalition that governs on the national level. If we don't want that, then we can go any way we want because it will not matter.

And you don't know what they are.

Demographic facts are stubborn things.

Yes. So it might be wise to learn what they are before altering the demographic makeup of the country.

I, for one, do not believe that conservative values and conservative politics have nothing to offer immigrants, Asians, hispanics, African-Americans,

Then you must not have heard that demographic facts are stubborn things. Because people vote in accordance with the values of their demographic group, and they do so across many generations. The sort of people who vote for despotic government in their home countries are not going to magically turn into followers of Hayek merely by walking across the border. Those sorts of attitudes are learned in chldhood, not by listening to political debates as adults.

As I'm sure you recall, GWB got over 40% of the hispanic vote in two consecutive elections in the 21st century

I cannot recall that, because it never happened. It's a myth, a falsehood, a fabrication.

We have acknowledge that we will ever again win a national majority with the coalition that elected Reagan.

If that is true, then it is because the GOP has actively pursued demographic change which has undermined conseravtism.

The country is changing.

No, the country is being changed, by the politicians of both parties, into the sort of place more hospitable to a corrupt oligarchy.

You are absolutely right, my man.

Too bad that the power brokers in both parties really hate what has made this country great and have sought to undermine it for the sake of their personal ambitions.  I am beginning to think Madison was right about political parties and the danger they can represent.

Bush won 45% of the Hispanic vote in 2004

Here's Newsmax on Bush's Hispanic vote totals in 2000 and 2004:

While Gore won 65 percent of the Latino community, holding Bush to a mere 35 percent, Kerry only carried the Hispanic vote by 55-45, paving the way for the Bush victory. 

Now, you are right that Bush did not receive over 40% in 2000, he received 35%. So, what happened between 2000 and 2004 such that so many Hispanics would decide to back the GOP candidate? Is this worth thinking about when we think about the future of our movement, our party and our country?

Since you maintain so stridently that

I cannot recall that [Bush won 40% of the Hispanic vote], because it never happened. It's a myth, a falsehood, a fabrication.

I can only conclude that your ideas are fixed and there is no point in trying to engage you in a discussion on this topic. More's the pity. Thanks for your time.

No, he did not.

Those figures were widely debunked.

I can only conclude that your ideas are fixed and there is no point in trying to engage you in a discussion on this topic

You're not capable of engaging me in a discussion on ths topic.  Your entire knowledge of matters political would fit quite easily on the back of a postage stamp.

 

 So, what happened between 2000 and 2004 such that so many Hispanics would decide to back the GOP candidate?

What "so many" are you talking about? Do you know anything at all about politics? The GOP's share of the Hispanic vote fluctuates up and down, consistently trailing its share of the overall vote by 20-30 points.  It has done this for as long as figures have been kept. It's what's known as a "fact". When Bush did better with the public at large, he did better with Hispanics.

That is the model which a conservative GOP should seek to follow, not your repulisve Democratic-stye ethnic pandring. Craft polices which the public likes and (shocker!) you'll do better wth all parts of the public.