New England

[Old Man Willow]

Can most of New England, along with the Upper Atlantic be considered as solid Dem as the plains and deep south for the GOP? It always seems we have a much harder time holding onto a base than they do.

[WalterMitty]

new england is safely democratic.   perhaps in the right (or wrong) circumstances the gop would have a glimmer of hope in the nh.

[You kip if you want to...]

Can most of New England, along with the Upper Atlantic be considered as solid Dem as the plains and deep south for the GOP? It always seems we have a much harder time holding onto a base than they do.

Yeah, not one state past PA and MD will be a swing state in 2012.

[tmthforu94]

Can most of New England, along with the Upper Atlantic be considered as solid Dem as the plains and deep south for the GOP? It always seems we have a much harder time holding onto a base than they do.

Yeah, not one state past PA and MD will be a swing state in 2012.

Depending on the climate and the candidate, New Hampshire is winnable. Also, possibly snagging 1 electoral vote in Maine. Obama would have to have a mediocore-poor Presidency for that to happen, though.

[pbrower2a]

The only counties east of the Hudson River to vote for McCain were Piscataquis County (barely) in Maine and Putnam County, New York.

(Richmond Borough, New York -- a/k/a Staten Island -- did vote for McCain, and just barely, but it is west of the Hudson).

[Ebowed]

Check the margins in MD, DE, NY, MA, RI, CT, ME, VT...

These people have been voting Democratic for nearly 20 years now.  It would take something fairly disastrous for the GOP to even be competitive in most of the region.

[Landslide Lyndon]

As long as Republicans are identified as the ''Party of the South'', they will be slaughtered north of the Potomac.
Same thing happened with Democrats when they were the ''Party of the South''.

[You kip if you want to...]

Same thing happened with Democrats when they were the ''Party of the South''.

The north-east is pretty much the new solid south, in my opinion.

[Holmes]

Can most of New England, along with the Upper Atlantic be considered as solid Dem as the plains and deep south for the GOP? It always seems we have a much harder time holding onto a base than they do.

Yeah, not one state past PA and MD will be a swing state in 2012.

Depending on the climate and the candidate, New Hampshire is winnable. Also, possibly snagging 1 electoral vote in Maine. Obama would have to have a mediocore-poor Presidency for that to happen, though.

Rather, maybe a GOP candidate would have a chance at Belknap county and Washington county.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Same thing happened with Democrats when they were the ''Party of the South''.

The north-east is pretty much the new solid south, in my opinion.

Chuck Todd already wrote after the 2006 elections about the ''Solid Northeast".

[Verily]

Same thing happened with Democrats when they were the ''Party of the South''.

The north-east is pretty much the new solid south, in my opinion.

No, the Solid South is the Solid South. (Look at vote numbers in the South for non-blacks and you'll see what I mean; remember that blacks weren't voting in the era of the old Solid South.)

The Northeast is Democratic. But 60% victories do not make it a Solid South-like area. 80% victories make an area the equivalent of the Solid South. And you see those... only in the South.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Nothing will ever compare to the Solid South.  Starting with the 1880 election, a Republican didn't win a former Confederate state until 1920, when Harding won Tennessee by 3% of the vote.  In South Carolina, the GOP got 23.4% in 1884; they didn't get 20% again until 1952; in Mississippi, they got 26% in 1888, and did get 20% again until 1952.

The Solid South was unique in its scope.  We will never again see a region dominated so completely as long as we are a true two party system.

[Brittain33]

Nothing will ever compare to the Solid South.  Starting with the 1880 election, a Republican didn't win a former Confederate state until 1920, when Harding won Tennessee by 3% of the vote.  In South Carolina, the GOP got 23.4% in 1884; they didn't get 20% again until 1952; in Mississippi, they got 26% in 1888, and did get 20% again until 1952.

The Solid South was unique in its scope.  We will never again see a region dominated so completely as long as we are a true two party system.

Or as long as we are a true democracy, where voting isn't limited to a small group of people.

[Nym90]

Nothing will ever compare to the Solid South.  Starting with the 1880 election, a Republican didn't win a former Confederate state until 1920, when Harding won Tennessee by 3% of the vote.  In South Carolina, the GOP got 23.4% in 1884; they didn't get 20% again until 1952; in Mississippi, they got 26% in 1888, and did get 20% again until 1952.

The Solid South was unique in its scope.  We will never again see a region dominated so completely as long as we are a true two party system.

Or as long as we are a true democracy, where voting isn't limited to a small group of people.

Indeed. If the South had been a democracy, the Solid South never would've existed to begin with.

[pbrower2a]

Check the margins in MD, DE, NY, MA, RI, CT, ME, VT...

These people have been voting Democratic for nearly 20 years now.  It would take something fairly disastrous for the GOP to even be competitive in most of the region.

...Add MI, WI, IL, MN, WA, OR, CA, HI, and DC and you have 248 electoral votes as of 2008 that haven't voted for the GOP nominee since 1988, and not one of them was close to voting for McCain in 2008. Except for DC, CA, and HI they have above-average achievement in formal education, and except for VT they are very urban. Voting participation rates are high. When the Democrats have a seeming lock on 90% of the electoral votes necessary for winning the Presidency, the GOP nominee has a tough  campaign.

Then add NH, IA, and NM, which have each voted for the GOP candidate only once in the last five elections. Ouch!

Urban, well-educated, and with high voting-participation rates -- that is all very different from the Old South (where for about 90 years blacks could legally vote if they could get around all the practical barriers, like having to prove that one could read material that the registrar could select. That could be Pravda). Those solid Democratic states aren't going back to the farm soon, and they aren't going to go dumb fast, either.     

[memphis]

Nothing will ever compare to the Solid South.  Starting with the 1880 election, a Republican didn't win a former Confederate state until 1920, when Harding won Tennessee by 3% of the vote.  In South Carolina, the GOP got 23.4% in 1884; they didn't get 20% again until 1952; in Mississippi, they got 26% in 1888, and did get 20% again until 1952.

The Solid South was unique in its scope.  We will never again see a region dominated so completely as long as we are a true two party system.

Or as long as we are a true democracy, where voting isn't limited to a small group of people.

Indeed. If the South had been a democracy, the Solid South never would've existed to begin with.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It still exists, except that Blacks can now vote as well. Whites in the South continue to vote as a bloc.

[??????????]

Nothing will ever compare to the Solid South.  Starting with the 1880 election, a Republican didn't win a former Confederate state until 1920, when Harding won Tennessee by 3% of the vote.  In South Carolina, the GOP got 23.4% in 1884; they didn't get 20% again until 1952; in Mississippi, they got 26% in 1888, and did get 20% again until 1952.

The Solid South was unique in its scope.  We will never again see a region dominated so completely as long as we are a true two party system.

Or as long as we are a true democracy, where voting isn't limited to a small group of people.

Indeed. If the South had been a democracy, the Solid South never would've existed to begin with.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It still exists, except that Blacks can now vote as well. Whites in the South continue to vote as a bloc.

Yep and blacks are one of the most split voting groups in the entire US.

I much prefer Old England, btw.

[Devilman88]

Nothing will ever compare to the Solid South.  Starting with the 1880 election, a Republican didn't win a former Confederate state until 1920, when Harding won Tennessee by 3% of the vote.  In South Carolina, the GOP got 23.4% in 1884; they didn't get 20% again until 1952; in Mississippi, they got 26% in 1888, and did get 20% again until 1952.

The Solid South was unique in its scope.  We will never again see a region dominated so completely as long as we are a true two party system.

Or as long as we are a true democracy, where voting isn't limited to a small group of people.

Indeed. If the South had been a democracy, the Solid South never would've existed to begin with.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It still exists, except that Blacks can now vote as well. Whites in the South continue to vote as a bloc.

You make that out to be a bad thing?

[Verily]

Nothing will ever compare to the Solid South.  Starting with the 1880 election, a Republican didn't win a former Confederate state until 1920, when Harding won Tennessee by 3% of the vote.  In South Carolina, the GOP got 23.4% in 1884; they didn't get 20% again until 1952; in Mississippi, they got 26% in 1888, and did get 20% again until 1952.

The Solid South was unique in its scope.  We will never again see a region dominated so completely as long as we are a true two party system.

Or as long as we are a true democracy, where voting isn't limited to a small group of people.

Indeed. If the South had been a democracy, the Solid South never would've existed to begin with.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It still exists, except that Blacks can now vote as well. Whites in the South continue to vote as a bloc.

You make that out to be a bad thing?

Ummm... it is bad. It's bad that there is such a cultural disconnect and divide that people polarize on a (correlating and sometimes causal) issue as absurd as skin color.

[Devilman88]

Nothing will ever compare to the Solid South.  Starting with the 1880 election, a Republican didn't win a former Confederate state until 1920, when Harding won Tennessee by 3% of the vote.  In South Carolina, the GOP got 23.4% in 1884; they didn't get 20% again until 1952; in Mississippi, they got 26% in 1888, and did get 20% again until 1952.

The Solid South was unique in its scope.  We will never again see a region dominated so completely as long as we are a true two party system.

Or as long as we are a true democracy, where voting isn't limited to a small group of people.

Indeed. If the South had been a democracy, the Solid South never would've existed to begin with.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It still exists, except that Blacks can now vote as well. Whites in the South continue to vote as a bloc.

You make that out to be a bad thing?

Ummm... it is bad. It's bad that there is such a cultural disconnect and divide that people polarize on a (correlating and sometimes causal) issue as absurd as skin color.

What are you talking about? He said that southern whites are a voting bloc, just so happens that the vote for the Republicans. Whites overall nation wide vote for the Republican candidate. It's not different then blacks voting for the Democrats.

[Brittain33]

Ummm... it is bad. It's bad that there is such a cultural disconnect and divide that people polarize on a (correlating and sometimes causal) issue as absurd as skin color.

Block voting by a majority isn't a good thing and it leads to corruption and unjust policy, but can we all agree it's not in the same moral universe as actually disenfranchising the minority? There's always the potential for change, and Democrats win on coalition votes sometimes.

[memphis]

Nothing will ever compare to the Solid South.  Starting with the 1880 election, a Republican didn't win a former Confederate state until 1920, when Harding won Tennessee by 3% of the vote.  In South Carolina, the GOP got 23.4% in 1884; they didn't get 20% again until 1952; in Mississippi, they got 26% in 1888, and did get 20% again until 1952.

The Solid South was unique in its scope.  We will never again see a region dominated so completely as long as we are a true two party system.

Or as long as we are a true democracy, where voting isn't limited to a small group of people.

Indeed. If the South had been a democracy, the Solid South never would've existed to begin with.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It still exists, except that Blacks can now vote as well. Whites in the South continue to vote as a bloc.

You make that out to be a bad thing?

Ummm... it is bad. It's bad that there is such a cultural disconnect and divide that people polarize on a (correlating and sometimes causal) issue as absurd as skin color.

What are you talking about? He said that southern whites are a voting bloc, just so happens that the vote for the Republicans. Whites overall nation wide vote for the Republican candidate. It's not different then blacks voting for the Democrats.

Blacks and whites actually do vote in different ways. Blacks are , by far, more unified. They practically unanimously vote Democratic in all races, even against black opponents. White people do tend to favor the Republicans but there are plenty of white Democrats. It's only in the Deep South (which was the heart of the old Solid South), where whites are uniformly Republican (and then only in presidential elections) Not trying to make a value judgment about any of this. Just stating facts.

[Brittain33]

Blacks and whites actually do vote in different ways. Blacks are , by far, more unified. They practically unanimously vote Democratic in all races, even against black opponents. White people do tend to favor the Republicans but there are plenty of white Democrats. It's only in the Deep South (which was the heart of the old Solid South), where whites are uniformly Republican (and then only in presidential elections) Not trying to make a value judgment about any of this. Just stating facts.

This is true, but I think we need to distinguish between the implications of block voting by an electoral minority and block voting by the majority. The majority will always be represented in the government, either on its own or in coalition with the minority. The minority risks being shut out completely. Given the history of race and elected government in the South, this is not an abstract issue.

However, it is true that block voting by Southern whites is not as prevalent as many people assume, and that historical factors are still shaking out and resolving themselves. The Alabama legislature still hasn't broken the post-Reconstruction pattern yet, and states like Mississippi and Tennessee are only now electing Republican legislative chambers.

[the artist formerly known as catmusic]

Safe Democrat. Especially Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Maryland.

[sg0508]

I think at this point, PA is near solidly democratic.  We all knew PA was going blue this year after we didn't get it in 04 and since we were on weaker ground, forget about it.

Spector barely survived this in 04 (53-42%) and still, that was a tight race for him.  Now, we've lost him.  We just keep putting up these insaniac rightwingers and that's not going to carry PA.  McCain wasn't one of them, but it was the wrong year to have a shot there.