Upon seeing this chart on the New York Times website this morning, I am curious to see Obama feels about it. The truth is that one of the major parties is essentially reduced to regional-party status, and it is the Republican Party. One of the easiest ways to gauge Obama's performance this year is in individual states this year - and get a sense of trends evolving in that state - thus compare his improvement over Kerry since the last election cycle in 2004. For example, Obama outperformed Kerry in both South Carolina and Montana among other states.
It seems the West loves Obama, especially in the most populous areas. Obama won Colorado by 8 points, Nevada by 12 points, and New Mexico by 12 points. Obviously, those are dramatically better numbers than Gore or Kerry put up in their races in 2000 and 2004 respectfully, and Bill Clinton had only one performance in these states that more or less matched these, an 8-point 1992 victory in a three-person race in New Mexico. He won nailbiters in Nevada both elections, and lost Colorado in 1996. Obama did slightly worse than Clinton in much of the rural West, oddly enough but again, far better than either Gore or Kerry. The improvement in the West is amazing and if it keeps up, experts believe that Arizona, Montana and maybe the Dakotas will be swing states in 2012, while Nevada and New Mexico will be blue states well past the next cycle.
What about moderately blue states? They liked the ticket and Obama won all of them by double digit margins. For those who forget what these states are, they are the following: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin. Unfortunately Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New York showed the least improvement but that is perhaps of their high margins when Kerry ran in 2004.
However Obama did lose ground from what I can determine from the chart in every single Southern state except for Georgia, North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. You know what these states have in common? They all have fairly large black populations (and in Texas' case, a large Hispanic population), and they also have experienced great population growth in the last decade, and have a generally better educated, more affluent, more urban and suburban white population than seen in other Southern states. Arkansas is the state where Obama performed the worst this entire year losing it by 20 points. Even Kerry did better, but still lost it by 9 points.
Apparently, the areas which showed the least improvement for Obama - or showed improvement for Republicans - are in Western Pennsylvania and eastern Ohio, West Virginia, rural Missouri and Kansas, much of the rural South, and McCain and Palin's home states. Without speculating on why those areas are the most resistant to Obama's candidacy relative to those of less successful Democrats, it seems that those are the areas Democrats have to focus on going forward, and experts and myself would concur with that point. It's clear, though, that whatever the reason, the white rural South - and demographically and culturally similar areas in the lower Midwest and Appalachia - are regions where we should be focusing on building the party. The Republicans are now reduced to being essentially a regional party; the South is the only region where McCain won by less than 10 points. It's now our job to find a way to sell a Democratic message in their Southern stronghold.
I would recommend anyone who is interested in this subject to read Zell Miller's book, 'A National Party No More.'
1 comment:
I think this shows that the U.S. is essentially a progressive nation, and maybe even more left-leaning after the Bush crisis years. The bizarre thing is how all of the pundits, those "political genius's", keep saying how the U.S. is a center-right nation. Since when? And how can they keep saying this, when Obama completely altered the political landscape in the Dem's favor?!?!
Post a Comment