GOP has lock on South and Democrats Can't Find Key

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Hurray for Racial Voting[/b], eh Sam?

Certainly the article is true for elections high up the electoral tree this year.
But we don't know who the candidates will be in 2008 yet... the 2004 results are not set in stone anywhere just as the 1996 (or 1976 or 1984) results weren't.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I remember Dems on this board 6 months ago even suggesting that Edwards was going to give Kerry a shot at North Carolina.  Oh yeah, and Virginia was a possibility.  Of course, none of them lived in the South, and didn't Know what the hell they were talking about.  I think it's called "being out of touch".

Confession: I was actually taking the piss more than just a little bit. I even made a "prediction" where Kerry won Mississippi :-)
But no one seemed to get the joke so I stopped it :-(

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Racial voting really isn't done that much in the South anymore.  It was important about 20 years ago, but now moral voting has sort of taken its place, except in certain spots.

Hurray for euphamisms! O.K that's true in some areas (especially TN, KY et al) but racial voting still exists in the Deep South and it got a lot worse in Alabama (almost certainly due to that anti-segregation proposed ammendment) this year.
Note I'm not calling all Southerners racists. What I am saying is that the South still has a major race problem but that very few people in positions that might make a difference (whether Republican or Democrat, White or Black) are doing anything about it because to do so would reduce their chances of re-election.
Racial Gerrymandering is the new face of segregation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In all fairness the "South" is hardly monolithic (nowhere is)... old style economic populism still sells very well in (say) rural Kentucky (minus GOP-since-1860 South Central KY o/c) or Arkansas. But you're right in that it sells extremely badly in the sunbelty white flight suburban areas.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What this election showed is a Massachusetts liberal can't do well in the south, duh. A more moderate southern Democrat probably couldn't win Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, South Carolina and probably now Georgia and Kentucky, but the others aren't like that.

A moderate/populist Democrat could probably win Kentucky (smaller suburban population etc) It would depend on who the GOP picked though.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Saying the Democrats are screwed because we can't win Texas is pretty asinine. Out of the 3 largest states, the other two besides Texas are safe Dem

What this election showed is a Massachusetts liberal can't do well in the south, duh.

Electorally, the bases of the two parties are basically the same.

If we use an  (utterly abritray) cutoff of 10% margin of victory as being a "safe" state for either party... it breaks down like this...

Safe Dems States

D. C. =>3 Evs => 79.84% margin of victory   
Massachusetts =>12 Evs => 25.16% margin of victory   
Rhode Island =>4 Evs => 20.75% margin of victory   
Vermont   =>3 Evs =>20.14% margin of victory   
New York   =>31 Evs => 18.29% margin of victory   
Maryland   =>10 Evs => 12.98% margin of victory   
Connecticut =>7 Evs => 10.37% margin of victory   
California   =>55 Evs => 9.95% margin of victory   
Illinois =>21 Evs => 10.34% margin of victory
   
TOTAL   146   

In anything short of an utter meltdown, the Dems get these states by default.

Using a similar 10% Criteria, the "anything short of an electoral meltdown" base for the GOP is...

Safe GOP States

Arizona   10   Evs =>   10.47%   margin of victory
North Carolina   15   Evs =>   12.43%   margin of victory
West Virginia   5   Evs =>   12.84%   margin of victory
Louisiana   9   Evs =>   14.51%   margin of victory
Tennessee   11   Evs =>   14.27%   margin of victory
Georgia   15   Evs =>   16.60%   margin of victory
South Carolina   8   Evs =>   17.08%   margin of victory
Montana   3   Evs =>   20.50%   margin of victory
Mississippi   6   Evs =>   19.72%   margin of victory
Kentucky   8   Evs =>   19.86%   margin of victory
South Dakota   3   Evs =>   21.47%   margin of victory
Indiana   11   Evs =>   20.68%   margin of victory
Alaska   3   Evs =>   25.55%   margin of victory
Texas   34   Evs =>   22.86%   margin of victory
Kansas   6   Evs =>   25.38%   margin of victory
Alabama   9   Evs =>   25.62%   margin of victory
North Dakota   3   Evs =>   27.36%   margin of victory
Oklahoma   7   Evs =>   31.14%   margin of victory
Nebraska   5   Evs =>   33.22%   margin of victory
Idaho   4   Evs =>   38.12%   margin of victory
Wyoming   3   Evs =>   39.79%   margin of victory
Utah   5   Evs =>   45.54%   margin of victory

TOTAL      183

You can "quibble" a few states here and there, Dems think they may have a shot at Arizona in 2008, and the GOP goes "California Dreaming" now and then, but I think an objective observer would say the GOP "Can withstand an apocalyptic meltdown" base is modestly bigger..

If we take the next step and define a "lean" as a margin of victory in the (again utterly arbitrary) 5 to 10% margin of victory range...

"Lean" Democratic   

Maine   4   Evs =>   8.03%   margin of victory
Hawaii   4   Evs =>   8.74%   margin of victory
Washington   11   Evs =>   7.18%   margin of victory
Delaware   3   Evs =>   7.59%   margin of victory
New Jersey   15   Evs =>   6.68%   margin of victory
Oregon   7   Evs =>   4.16%   margin of victory

TOTAL      44

Total "Safe" + "Lean" => 190 EVs

So in an even remotely competitive election, the Dem base is 190 EVs

If we take the next step now on the GOP side and  define a "lean" as a margin of victory in the (again utterly arbitrary) 5 to 10% margin of victory range...

"Lean" GOP

Florida   27   Evs =>   5.01%   margin of victory
Missouri   11   Evs =>   7.20%   margin of victory
Virginia   13   Evs =>   8.20%   margin of victory
Arkansas   6   Evs =>   9.75%   margin of victory

TOTAL   57

Total "Safe" = "Lean" => 240

Again a modest and meaningful, but certainly not staggering lead for the GOP.

If you argue (as I am sure most democrats will) that Florida, despite Bush's 5% & 400,000 vote margin remains a true swing state, then the GOP advantage is just 217 to 190 EVs...

Using the 217 to 190 ratio.. that leaves the following as true swing states....

Minnesota   9   Evs =>   3.48%   margin of victory   
Michigan   17   Evs =>   3.42%   margin of victory   
Pennsylvania   21   Evs =>   2.50%   margin of victory   
New Hampshire   4   Evs =>   1.37%   margin of victory   
Wisconsin   10   Evs =>   0.38%   margin of victory   
New Mexico   5   Evs =>   0.79%   margin of victory   
Iowa   7   Evs =>   0.67%   margin of victory   
Nevada   5   Evs =>   2.59%   margin of victory   
Ohio   20   Evs =>   2.11%   margin of victory   
Colorado   9   Evs =>   4.67%   margin of victory   
Florida   27   Evs =>   5.01%   margin of victory

For a total of 134 EVs..

Assuming both sides hold their base, the GOP needs 43 out of 134, the Dems need 80 out of 134..

Again a modest GOP edge, but nothing crazy.

The GOP needs 1/3rd of the true toss ups to win, the Dems need 2/3rds.

I'd rather be the GOP, but the game is a long long way from over...

The Presidency is now, to use a Senate analogy, kinda like say Maine...

In a brand new open Senate race in Maine, with no incumbant and roughly equal candidtaes, the Dems would win more often than not... Not always, but usually...  A "generic" Democrat would usually beat a "Generic" Republican...

Oh wait... Maine has two GOP Senators....

Yes the GOP has an edge, but that edge is quite a bit less that the difference between a good candidate and a bad candidate...

All things being equal, the GOP wins the Presidency, but all things are rarely, if ever, equal...

Interesting. And would be extremely useful if George W Bush was allowed to seek re-election

[Filuwaúrdjan]

DaleC76 posted the amendment here.  It was awfully worded and I would have probably voted against it, as did many black people in the so-called "Fat Belt" middle of Alabama did also.

Not the point. There was an anti-segregation ammendment on the ballot. There was a large increase in turnout statewide. There was a large increase in racial voting statewide.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What do you mean by the "North" and racism?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Huge numbers are registered Democrats themselves, and on the state level, the Dems still are major players throughout the South.

Very true. One of the most interesting voting patterns across most of the South since the '60's is the habit of [rural] white Democrats to vote more Democratic the more local the office.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I happen to be Christian, but I applaud the Menorahs displayed publically.  I also applaud stamps celebrating Eid, Chanukah and Christmas.

Chanukah and Eid may not be my holidays, but I celebrate them both with friends who find spiritual meaning in them; and I'm happy when these friends wish me a Merry Christmas.  I see no problem with the counrty doing the same thing.

Agreed