Latino Decisions: Obama leads among Hispanics in 5 critical swing states

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I don't really consider Arizona a swing state, at least not in this election.  It could be in the future, but since McCain carried it in the last election, I think that it probably leans toward Romney.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I don't really consider Arizona a swing state, at least not in this election.  It could be in the future, but since McCain carried it in the last election, I think that it probably leans toward Romney.

McCain was from Arizona.

Arizona does lean Romney but lean states by definition can be swung.

[pbrower2a]

I don't really consider Arizona a swing state, at least not in this election.  It could be in the future, but since McCain carried it in the last election, I think that it probably leans toward Romney.

Since 2000 what states are the swing states in November decides what is possible. In 2000 and 2004 the swing states were FL, IA, MI, NH, NM, OH, PA, and WI, and the Dubya won three of them in 2000 and four in 2004. In 2008 they were CO, FL, IN, MO, NC, OH, and VA; Obama won all but one of them but would have won with any one of them. Astute or incompetent politics, let alone overall performance, can determine what is available.

Replace IN with AZ (because President Obama is not going to expend the effort that he did in Indiana this time as an incumbent), and one has a scenario analogous to that of 2008. Basically I see FL, MO, OH, and VA unique enough that the President can win any one of them without winning the others, CO and NV going in tandem, and such states as AZ, GA, IN, and NC depending on how some other states go to be possibilities for President Obama.

[TheGlobalizer]

Obama leads among Hispanics

You don't say?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I really don't think that the swing states change much in between elections unless you have a major realignment (a la 1980 or 1992).

[pbrower2a]

I really don't think that the swing states change much in between elections unless you have a major realignment (a la 1980 or 1992).

If you look at the difference between the elections of 2000/2004 (essentially the same results with only three states switching) and 2008 you find:

IA, NH, and NM, legitimate swing states in a bare Republican victory (you could probably add PA and WI), were not legitimate swing states in a firm Democratic victory for President.

FL and OH were the states that Gore and Kerry expected to be the difference in their barest possible victories. In a firm Democratic victory for the President, Ohio is a sure thing and Florida is a near-sure thing (but Clinton lost it once). These states can be decided on ethnic shifts (Florida) or economic issues (Ohio).

CO and NV were decided by demographic shifts related to ethnicity. These could be permanent.

VA could represent a realignment based on geographic affiliation of the state -- and a large part of the State now has more in common with New Jersey or southeastern Pennsylvania than with other states long considered Southern. NC could be VA to a lesser degree.

IN was a disaster for Republicans because an economic disaster hit while the Democratic nominee actually campaigned in a state in which he had a geographic advantage. That might not be repeated.

I am going to figure that CO, NV, and VA had huge realignments. It is possible that the Republicans in PA are trying to win the state by controlling the electoral process... if they can get away with it.  Republicans can keep winning if they find ways to limit the vote so that voting depends upon lengthened times of residence, income requirements, or general difficulty of poor people (especially minorities) to meet administrative requirements.

[hopper]

I really don't think that the swing states change much in between elections unless you have a major realignment (a la 1980 or 1992).

If you look at the difference between the elections of 2000/2004 (essentially the same results with only three states switching) and 2008 you find:

IA, NH, and NM, legitimate swing states in a bare Republican victory (you could probably add PA and WI), were not legitimate swing states in a firm Democratic victory for President.

FL and OH were the states that Gore and Kerry expected to be the difference in their barest possible victories. In a firm Democratic victory for the President, Ohio is a sure thing and Florida is a near-sure thing (but Clinton lost it once). These states can be decided on ethnic shifts (Florida) or economic issues (Ohio).

CO and NV were decided by demographic shifts related to ethnicity. These could be permanent.

VA could represent a realignment based on geographic affiliation of the state -- and a large part of the State now has more in common with New Jersey or southeastern Pennsylvania than with other states long considered Southern. NC could be VA to a lesser degree.

IN was a disaster for Republicans because an economic disaster hit while the Democratic nominee actually campaigned in a state in which he had a geographic advantage. That might not be repeated.

I am going to figure that CO, NV, and VA had huge realignments. It is possible that the Republicans in PA are trying to win the state by controlling the electoral process... if they can get away with it.  Republicans can keep winning if they find ways to limit the vote so that voting depends upon lengthened times of residence, income requirements, or general difficulty of poor people (especially minorities) to meet administrative requirements.

NV yeah. CO maybe but Obama did win the white vote there in 2008 and McCain did better than Bush W. with the latino vote there(38% in 2008 to 30% in 2004.) VA has alot of government workers in Northern VA so its not necessarily a demographic shift there.

Huh? income requirements? Never heard of somebody having to make a certain amount of money in order to vote. 

[pbrower2a]

I really don't think that the swing states change much in between elections unless you have a major realignment (a la 1980 or 1992).

If you look at the difference between the elections of 2000/2004 (essentially the same results with only three states switching) and 2008 you find:

IA, NH, and NM, legitimate swing states in a bare Republican victory (you could probably add PA and WI), were not legitimate swing states in a firm Democratic victory for President.

FL and OH were the states that Gore and Kerry expected to be the difference in their barest possible victories. In a firm Democratic victory for the President, Ohio is a sure thing and Florida is a near-sure thing (but Clinton lost it once). These states can be decided on ethnic shifts (Florida) or economic issues (Ohio).

CO and NV were decided by demographic shifts related to ethnicity. These could be permanent.

VA could represent a realignment based on geographic affiliation of the state -- and a large part of the State now has more in common with New Jersey or southeastern Pennsylvania than with other states long considered Southern. NC could be VA to a lesser degree.

IN was a disaster for Republicans because an economic disaster hit while the Democratic nominee actually campaigned in a state in which he had a geographic advantage. That might not be repeated.

I am going to figure that CO, NV, and VA had huge realignments. It is possible that the Republicans in PA are trying to win the state by controlling the electoral process... if they can get away with it.  Republicans can keep winning if they find ways to limit the vote so that voting depends upon lengthened times of residence, income requirements, or general difficulty of poor people (especially minorities) to meet administrative requirements.

NV yeah. CO maybe but Obama did win the white vote there in 2008 and McCain did better than Bush W. with the latino vote there(38% in 2008 to 30% in 2004.) VA has alot of government workers in Northern VA so its not necessarily a demographic shift there.

Huh? income requirements? Never heard of somebody having to make a certain amount of money in order to vote. 

I can imagine Republicans trying to come up with anything that would favor them. So would having to be at the same residence for five years.

[Ebowed]

Never heard of somebody having to make a certain amount of money in order to vote. 

The poll tax was eradicated in 1966.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Never heard of somebody having to make a certain amount of money in order to vote. 

The poll tax was eradicated in 1966.

That wouldn't make a property or income qualification invalid per se.  It would be perfectly constitutional for a state to require that a person own an acre of land in order to vote provided it exempted that requisite first acre of land from property tax.  Not that I am aware of any State having a property requirement since the Civil War.  (And I think South Carolina was the only State that still had one at the start of the War.)