Who lost Ohio..?

[12th Doctor]

Except we're talking about Ohio, a state that's always been assumed to have a slight Republican tilt. Might I point out Ohio still voted more Democratic than the national average.

Using your logic supersoulty though, then will you at least admit Minnesota is a Dem-leaning state?

I admit that in a maximum turnout situation, Minnesota is still a Democrat state, much to my chagrin.

Unlike most of those who have responded, I think that you at least get my point.

But this was not just Ohio.  The Democrats achieved maximum turnout or better in every battleground state.

[Nym90]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not good at maths, but I don't think that 37% is a majority...

Could both sides quit spinning? It's irritating...
---
As to why Kerry lost Ohio: I agree with JNB. I'll add that Kerry's last rally should have been in Dayton or Eastern Ohio (Portsmouth or Zanesville. Maybe Steubenville)

The Democrats need to learn the hard lesson that Labour learned in the '80's: when a large amount of you're natural supporters are not voting for you you need to find out why and do something about it... even if it means abandoning a smaller group of voters.
---
Re: Higher Turnout... I personally think that the higher turnout *did* help Kerry. If turnout was as low as it was in 2000, I'm pretty sure that Bush would have won big.

It is not spin Al.  First off, it is a fact that most people who are "Independent" in fact align themselves with one party or another.

Second, in the past, high turnout favored the Democrats because most people identified with that party.  This past year, highturnout benefited the Republicans.  In order to win, the Democrats are now in the possition that the Republicans were in all that year, they have to figure out a way to steal voters away from the other party, or depress turn-out.

You know what that means, Al?  Realignment.  I'm not the only one who is saying so either.  I hate to pull names, but my professor Dr. David Kozak, who is called the "John Madden of American Politics" by Charlie Cook, also believes that there has been a realignment.

It's also worth noting that Kerry actually won the independent vote, albeit narrowly. Bush won because there were just as many Republicans as Democrats for the first time in a long time, and more Democrats voted for Bush than Democrats for Kerry.

I don't know if the Dem turnout was as good as it possibly could have been, however. Yes, turnout was high this year compared to past years, but there were still a lot of people who didn't vote. The Republicans clearly had a much better turnout operation than in the past, and thus the Democrats thought their GOTV effort was good enough to win because they didn't expect the Republican GOTV to be as good as it was.

I wouldn't necessarily say that the Democratic GOTV was phenomenally good this year, however.

That being said, the GOP, even if they are temporarily a majority party, won't remain so. They will go too far to the right, and the Dems will go back toward the middle, and we will return to equilibrium or a Democratic majority again. As much as you guys hate people like Specter, you need him to have a majority; don't confuse a Republican majority with a conservative majority.

About half of the American people are moderate, 30% are conservative, and 20% liberal or so. Both parties need moderates to win.

[opebo]

I decline to give the New York Times information about myself.

BTW, did you ever set up the web site you mentioned about six months ago?

Just use http://www.bugmenot.com/

[The Vorlon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not good at maths, but I don't think that 37% is a majority...

I agree the GOP does not have a "majority" in the sense that they can run the proverbial "Ham Sandwich" and win Nationally, but they do have a modest edge. (The GOP could run a homophobic/extreamist far right crazy in say, oh, Oklahoma, and likely win as a point of departure)

The 2004 exit polls had it 37/37/26 Rep/Dem/GOP (Actually if you take it out to the "tenths" the GOP won by about 0.8%) - But some of the Dems 37 is the so called "Dixiecrats" vote - GOP in everything by name only.

Self Identified GOP voters broke 93/6 for Bush (+87%) while self Identified Dem voters went 89/11 for Kerry (+78) - and the GOP voters being more solidly behind their candidate than Dems are behind theirs is a fairly consistent thing.

What it boils down to is the GOP has, due to their almost monolithic GOP loyalty is "about" a 3% or so national advantage right now.

This is a quite modest advantage, but it will tilt a close race to the GOP.

An approximate analogy is the Senate races in Maine.  Maine is a modestly but not crushingly democratic state.  If there was a fresh senate race with no incumbant, equal money and +/- equal candidates the Democrat would usually win a senate race in Maine, not always, but more often than not.

As it turns out, Maine has 2 very fine GOP Senators (Snowe & Collins) because both of the senators happen to be good to excellent candidates and very moderate members of the GOP

Nationally, the Dems now need the same thing - their Candidate needs to be a bit better and a little more moderate than the GOP candidate - not by a ton - but a bit better.

If the GOP runs say a Bob Dole, they likely lose, if the Dems run a Bill Clinton skill level candidate they likely win.

If it's "Dead Fish A" versus "Dead Fish B" the GOP fish will probably win.

Think of it as a .520 baseball club against a .480 baseball club.

The .520 club will over the course of the season win more games, but each individual game might turn on a strong pitching performance or a single great play...

Re: Higher Turnout... I personally think that the higher turnout *did* help Kerry. If turnout was as low as it was in 2000, I'm pretty sure that Bush would have won big.

Correct.

[Storebought]

Cook is right, and the penultimate paragraph of the Times article is a good summary.

"Therein, perhaps, lies the real lesson from Ohio, and from the election as a whole. From the days of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and especially after the disputed election of 2000, Democrats operated on the premise that they were superior in numbers, if only because their supporters lived in such concentrated urban communities. If they could mobilize every Democratic vote in America's industrial centers -- and in its populist heartland as well -- then they would win on math alone. Not anymore. Republicans now have their own concentrated vote, and it will probably continue to swell. Turnout operations like ACT can be remarkably successful at corralling the votes that exist, but turnout alone is no longer enough to win a national election for Democrats. The next Democrat who wins will be the one who changes enough minds."

Will that last sentence be a significant requirement three years from now as the field of Democrats for President head into the primaries?

You all realize that this means something.  The Deomcrats admit that, according to their turn-out models, they should have won easily.  The fact that the high turn-out no longer means a win for the Democrats means that, after 20 years of dealignment, we finally have a new, Republican realignment.  The majority of the American people now identify with the Republican Party.  

All hail the new Republican Age!

I won't share your optimism until the first Tuesday of November 2008.

But if Rasmussen's theory is correct (the GOP wins multiple elections by small majorities; the Democrats win by large pluralities only when the GOP fractures), then we may well be entering a new GOP era.

[CARLHAYDEN]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not good at maths, but I don't think that 37% is a majority...

Looks like my previous estimate of 38d/37r/25o was pretty close.

I agree the GOP does not have a "majority" in the sense that they can run the proverbial "Ham Sandwich" and win Nationally, but they do have a modest edge. (The GOP could run a homophobic/extreamist far right crazy in say, oh, Oklahoma, and likely win as a point of departure)

The 2004 exit polls had it 37/37/26 Rep/Dem/GOP (Actually if you take it out to the "tenths" the GOP won by about 0.8%) - But some of the Dems 37 is the so called "Dixiecrats" vote - GOP in everything by name only.

Self Identified GOP voters broke 93/6 for Bush (+87%) while self Identified Dem voters went 89/11 for Kerry (+78) - and the GOP voters being more solidly behind their candidate than Dems are behind theirs is a fairly consistent thing.

What it boils down to is the GOP has, due to their almost monolithic GOP loyalty is "about" a 3% or so national advantage right now.

This is a quite modest advantage, but it will tilt a close race to the GOP.

An approximate analogy is the Senate races in Maine.  Maine is a modestly but not crushingly democratic state.  If there was a fresh senate race with no incumbant, equal money and +/- equal candidates the Democrat would usually win a senate race in Maine, not always, but more often than not.

As it turns out, Maine has 2 very fine GOP Senators (Snowe & Collins) because both of the senators happen to be good to excellent candidates and very moderate members of the GOP

Nationally, the Dems now need the same thing - their Candidate needs to be a bit better and a little more moderate than the GOP candidate - not by a ton - but a bit better.

If the GOP runs say a Bob Dole, they likely lose, if the Dems run a Bill Clinton skill level candidate they likely win.

If it's "Dead Fish A" versus "Dead Fish B" the GOP fish will probably win.

Think of it as a .520 baseball club against a .480 baseball club.

The .520 club will over the course of the season win more games, but each individual game might turn on a strong pitching performance or a single great play...

Re: Higher Turnout... I personally think that the higher turnout *did* help Kerry. If turnout was as low as it was in 2000, I'm pretty sure that Bush would have won big.

Correct.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I agree the GOP does not have a "majority" in the sense that they can run the proverbial "Ham Sandwich" and win Nationally, but they do have a modest edge. (The GOP could run a homophobic/extreamist far right crazy in say, oh, Oklahoma, and likely win as a point of departure)

The 2004 exit polls had it 37/37/26 Rep/Dem/GOP (Actually if you take it out to the "tenths" the GOP won by about 0.8%) - But some of the Dems 37 is the so called "Dixiecrats" vote - GOP in everything by name only.

Self Identified GOP voters broke 93/6 for Bush (+87%) while self Identified Dem voters went 89/11 for Kerry (+78) - and the GOP voters being more solidly behind their candidate than Dems are behind theirs is a fairly consistent thing.

What it boils down to is the GOP has, due to their almost monolithic GOP loyalty is "about" a 3% or so national advantage right now.

This is a quite modest advantage, but it will tilt a close race to the GOP.

An approximate analogy is the Senate races in Maine.  Maine is a modestly but not crushingly democratic state.  If there was a fresh senate race with no incumbant, equal money and +/- equal candidates the Democrat would usually win a senate race in Maine, not always, but more often than not.

As it turns out, Maine has 2 very fine GOP Senators (Snowe & Collins) because both of the senators happen to be good to excellent candidates and very moderate members of the GOP

Nationally, the Dems now need the same thing - their Candidate needs to be a bit better and a little more moderate than the GOP candidate - not by a ton - but a bit better.

If the GOP runs say a Bob Dole, they likely lose, if the Dems run a Bill Clinton skill level candidate they likely win.

If it's "Dead Fish A" versus "Dead Fish B" the GOP fish will probably win.

Think of it as a .520 baseball club against a .480 baseball club.

The .520 club will over the course of the season win more games, but each individual game might turn on a strong pitching performance or a single great play...

The Republicans have had the edge in Presidential races for a long time now (lets say... 1968. Yes. 1968) I've got some stuff from the '80's claiming that there was a GOP "lock" on the electoral college.

It's difficult for a Patrician Liberal to win nationally... good news for the Democrats is that Kerry came close to winning, good news for the GOP is that he didn't.

As far as Party ID figures go, I think they're pretty misleading in that if... say Evangelicals... turnout in proportionally much higher numbers than normal voters then the figures will be distorted as a result of this.
Oklahoma is a good example of that actually.
Useful but useless. Nothing like statistics for that really...

It's actually strange to think that it's impossible to actually know (empirically at least) whether there are more Democrats than Republicans or vice versa. Not all states register by Party, Party ID figures show only the partisan breakdown of people who voted... [interestingly the numbers of State Legislators is as close to dead even as makes no difference. Dems have advantage in State Houses, GOP in State Senates.]

Leaving plenty of room for arguments.
My take is that there are more Democrats (probably quite a lot more) but they are [much, much, much] less likely to vote than Republicans, [much] less likely to vote straight ticket (guess what: despite Bush cracking 60% in Alabama the Democrats *gained* seats in the Alabama Legislature) and the party's national organisation is a sad joke (state Parties are often the reverse of this though).

There are a lot of parallels with Labour in the '80's (except there's been no splinter group yet).

At least that idiot running the DNC is going soon...

----
Oh, and as far as Dixiecrats go, WV isn't really part of Dixie, but the % of voters self IDing as Democrats in WV appears to have increased from 2000.
IIRC it was 47% in 2000, CNN has it as 50% for 2004. Either way not even trying to a win a state where you have an advantage as huge as that is a disgrace.