The West

[King]

After a modern history of GOP landslides in the mid 60s to low 70 percentile for the Republican candidate (Bush/Dole + Perot included), Nebraska gave 41% of its popular vote and one electoral vote to Barack Obama.  In South Dakota, North Dakota, and Montana, Obama received 45%, 45%, and 47%.  In Kansas, another 41% performance.  In Colorado, a strong victory.

The polling in these states was fairly pro-Obama even before the Economic Crisis.

Has the populist economic message of the Democratic Party finally made a break through in the West or is this election an anomaly in the region?

[longtimelurker]

I bet it's because

1) increase in Hispanic voters in the west
2) young first-time voters voting overwhelmingly D

There is obviously some percentage of people who voted for Bush in '04 who voted for Obama.  I would be surprised if no one did a poll on this.  If not, someone should.

[cannonia]

How about the GOP (read: Bush) alienating the small government types?  The current GOP is not likely to inspire another Sagebrush Rebellion.

BTW... Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas are the West?

[minionofmidas]

How about the GOP (read: Bush) alienating the small government types?  The current GOP is not likely to inspire another Sagebrush Rebellion.

BTW... Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas are the West?

Not to the Census Bureau, but basically yes. Sort of intermediate (that entire tier is, including Texas and Oklahoma as well).

[NOVA Green]

I bet it's because

1) increase in Hispanic voters in the west
2) young first-time voters voting overwhelmingly D

There is obviously some percentage of people who voted for Bush in '04 who voted for Obama.  I would be surprised if no one did a poll on this.  If not, someone should.

One of the exit poll reviews I saw said that 17% of Bush '04 voters went for Obama this time around...

There are additional factors besides points 1 & 2...

Most of the West actually has an extremely urbanized population, and some of Obama's biggest swings were amongst urban and suburban White voters. Obama dominated in the suburbs of Denver, almost won Salt Lake county Utah, obliterated McCain in the Portland and Seattle suburbs, not to mention doing extremely well in former Republican strongholds in Southern California.

Additionally, he did extremely well in rural parts of the West, where there was a fair amount of animosity towards national dems for gun-rights and natural resource issues that goes back to the '90s and the Clinton administration.

[platypeanArchcow]

The biggest swings to Obama in California were in foreclosure hell: Merced, Stanislaus, Riverside.  I think, along with Nevada, these people just decided to vote on their economic problems for once.

[Person Man]

Did he seal the deal in the west? Maybe. Does he have an opening to make the west go more D than R in the future? Definately.

[Sbane]

The biggest swings to Obama in California were in foreclosure hell: Merced, Stanislaus, Riverside.  I think, along with Nevada, these people just decided to vote on their economic problems for once.

Basically conservative hispanics forgot about the social issues and voted their pocketbooks. Not to0 sure about the downscale white vote, although I think they just turned out at a lower rate.  Also I think Merced swang the hardest due to UC merced, which did not even exist in 2004. Stanislaus county was the biggest surprise for me at least. Is the foreclosure situation even worse in Modesto than Stockton?

[phk]

The biggest swings to Obama in California were in foreclosure hell: Merced, Stanislaus, Riverside.  I think, along with Nevada, these people just decided to vote on their economic problems for once.

Basically conservative hispanics forgot about the social issues and voted their pocketbooks. Not to0 sure about the downscale white vote, although I think they just turned out at a lower rate.  Also I think Merced swang the hardest due to UC merced, which did not even exist in 2004. Stanislaus county was the biggest surprise for me at least. Is the foreclosure situation even worse in Modesto than Stockton?

Is UC Merced that big even? I remember they only had 5,000 students just 1-2 years ago.

I can bet the Fresno County would have voted Dem for the first time since 1992 if we had gotten the UC instead.

[Jacobtm]

Single electoins mean nothing.

In '64 Democrats sweeped, then the next two cycles Republicans sweeped. A highly regionalized election followed, but then 3 more complete Republican blowouts. Bill Clinton then made inroads into nearly every region of the country, only for most of those to be wiped away in 2 narrow Republican victories.

It's not like winning in a particular region means your party is going to dominate there for any forseeable amount of time...

[Sbane]

The biggest swings to Obama in California were in foreclosure hell: Merced, Stanislaus, Riverside.  I think, along with Nevada, these people just decided to vote on their economic problems for once.

Basically conservative hispanics forgot about the social issues and voted their pocketbooks. Not to0 sure about the downscale white vote, although I think they just turned out at a lower rate.  Also I think Merced swang the hardest due to UC merced, which did not even exist in 2004. Stanislaus county was the biggest surprise for me at least. Is the foreclosure situation even worse in Modesto than Stockton?

Is UC Merced that big even? I remember they only had 5,000 students just 1-2 years ago.

I can bet the Fresno County would have voted Dem for the first time since 1992 if we had gotten the UC instead.

Yeah it is not that significant, maybe worth a point or two which would have been enough for Fresno. Remember its not just students but administrators,professors, random employees. Here in Irvine the best precinct for Obama was not the dorms, but rather the precinct that contains the housing development for faculty. It looks like any other Irvine suburb but is populated almost entirely of professors and other faculty. It voted 88% for Obama and 90% no on 8, the highest in the city of Irvine for both and perhaps even the county.

[NOVA Green]

Single electoins mean nothing.

In '64 Democrats sweeped, then the next two cycles Republicans sweeped. A highly regionalized election followed, but then 3 more complete Republican blowouts. Bill Clinton then made inroads into nearly every region of the country, only for most of those to be wiped away in 2 narrow Republican victories.

It's not like winning in a particular region means your party is going to dominate there for any forseeable amount of time...

Any comparison with Clinton in '92 or '96 is bound to be false, because there was a minor party candidate that did extremely well (particularly in the West) that election. Obama won with a PV majority, first time for a Dem since '64, and we can actually measure party support without having to eliminate 20% of the voters to create a false "majority vote".

I do agree with your broader point about Clinton inroads, but in much of the West Perot's votes were more likely to come from Republican voters than Democrats. Even during Clinton's wins, there were many key Western counties that Clinton did not carry.

[phk]

Single electoins mean nothing.

In '64 Democrats sweeped, then the next two cycles Republicans sweeped. A highly regionalized election followed, but then 3 more complete Republican blowouts. Bill Clinton then made inroads into nearly every region of the country, only for most of those to be wiped away in 2 narrow Republican victories.

It's not like winning in a particular region means your party is going to dominate there for any forseeable amount of time...

Any comparison with Clinton in '92 or '96 is bound to be false, because there was a minor party candidate that did extremely well (particularly in the West) that election. Obama won with a PV majority, first time for a Dem since '64, and we can actually measure party support without having to eliminate 20% of the voters to create a false "majority vote".

I do agree with your broader point about Clinton inroads, but in much of the West Perot's votes were more likely to come from Republican voters than Democrats. Even during Clinton's wins, there were many key Western counties that Clinton did not carry.

1976...

I do think if turnout was higher in 1996, Clinton could have achieved 50% pV+

[NOVA Green]

Single electoins mean nothing.

In '64 Democrats sweeped, then the next two cycles Republicans sweeped. A highly regionalized election followed, but then 3 more complete Republican blowouts. Bill Clinton then made inroads into nearly every region of the country, only for most of those to be wiped away in 2 narrow Republican victories.

It's not like winning in a particular region means your party is going to dominate there for any forseeable amount of time...

Any comparison with Clinton in '92 or '96 is bound to be false, because there was a minor party candidate that did extremely well (particularly in the West) that election. Obama won with a PV majority, first time for a Dem since '64, and we can actually measure party support without having to eliminate 20% of the voters to create a false "majority vote".

I do agree with your broader point about Clinton inroads, but in much of the West Perot's votes were more likely to come from Republican voters than Democrats. Even during Clinton's wins, there were many key Western counties that Clinton did not carry.

1976...

I do think if turnout was higher in 1996, Clinton could have achieved 50% pV+

My bad.... I forgot Carter got 50.1%. My broader point regarding inroads in the West is still correct however.

[The Ex-Factor]

As we saw in the Democratic primaries, Obama seems to be a much better candidate for the Democrats in the mid/west then the likes of Kerry and Dukakis, and much worse in Appalachia.

[NOVA Green]

As we saw in the Democratic primaries, Obama seems to be a much better candidate for the Democrats in the mid/west then the likes of Kerry and Dukakis, and much worse in Appalachia.

The problem for the Republicans is that the NW is now totally gone, unlike the relatively close elections in 2000 and '04 (granted Nader was a factor here).

McCain lost the Portland and Seattle suburbs by huge margins to make any hope of a Republican recovery in these key areas for 2-3 cycles almost impossible.

California was long gone, but seeing Obama winning San Diego, Riverside, San Bernadino, and almost Orange signals an even longer realignment period.

The question is if the Democrats will be able to hold on to the 10-15% margins in NM, CO, and NV much beyond this election cycle. If the Republicans can't reinvent themselves in the next decade, there is a good chance that even if they recapture the South, as well as perennial FL and OH, they are still locked out of the electoral college for several elections.

Unfortunately for the Republicans, McCain had the best reputation amongst Latinos and independents in the West that they will most likely be able to offer for a decade, unless the first Obama term is an utter failure.

[Padfoot]

As we saw in the Democratic primaries, Obama seems to be a much better candidate for the Democrats in the mid/west then the likes of Kerry and Dukakis, and much worse in Appalachia.

I think the question now is, is this a sign of how the region will vote for the next 30 years like Nixon's crushing victory in the South was in 1972 OR is Obama just the right candidate for the region at the right time?  I'm inclined to believe the former rather than the latter based on increased Democratic success across the board in the West.  Democrats have been making inroads on the congressional and statewide level out there for the past several years and Obama's victory was the culmination of that.  

Although he went after the traditional battlegrounds of Ohio and Florida, and he ended up winning Indiana, Virginia, and North Carolina; the backbone of Obama's path to victory was always through New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada.  Comparing Obama's percentage in the 9 states he flipped this year makes this even clearer:

1. New Mexico 56.64%
2. Nevada 55.11%
3. Iowa 53.78%
4. Colorado 52.57%
5. Virginia 52.56%
6. Ohio 51.10%
7. Florida 51.00%
8. Indiana 49.92%
9. North Carolina 49.70%

Obama has set up the Democrats very nicely for future success West of the Mississippi which will be especially crucial after the 2010 reapportionment redraws the electoral map.

[Stranger in a strange land]

As we saw in the Democratic primaries, Obama seems to be a much better candidate for the Democrats in the mid/west then the likes of Kerry and Dukakis, and much worse in Appalachia.

Interestingly, there was almost no correlation between how states voted in the primary and how they voted in the general, making Hillary's I won the big states/blue states/swing states/states whose names don't begin with vowels argument look pretty dumb. On the other hand you are getting at something: Obama's appalchian problem in the primary was also his problem in the general, and his performance in Western Primaries signalled that he would do much, much better in the Mountain West than Hillary would have.

[Derek]

The west has been trending democrat in the past 5 elections. What do you mean by west though? I mean technically, Texas is in the west. It's a divided territory overall. You have the CA, OR, WA, HI states vs WY, MT, UT, ID, and AZ. Then in the middle there's CO, NM, NV. I'm interested to see how MT and AZ trend as well as CA.