The next Vermonts and West Virginias

[Alcon]

South Dakota, but not North Dakota.

Why would South Dakota turn Democratic but not North Dakota?  Aren't these states pretty similar?

Because South Dakota has a (relatively) large Native American population, and they are heavily Democrat. They also have a higher birth rate so they are increasing as a percentage of the state (same in ND but smaller population base). The white population in the Dakotas is very old and the young always leave after high school. BRTD knows more about this, I'm just speaking in general terms.

I was actually being facetious, and the population exodus is really much more of an issue in North Dakota than South Dakota.

[ian]

I'm surprised no one chose my pick, New Jersey.  There were a few polls that showed it close for 2004, and there is plenty of incentive for NJ to vote Republican.
On our side, I think South Dakota and Montana were good choices by those who chose them.  Also, Wyoming should be noted.  Not that it will happen any time soon, but when Dick Cheney leaves office, WY will surely score some more points on the Democratic side.  This map seems to help my point.  Idaho should also be noted as trend toward us.

[Soaring Eagle]

I don't see any states leaving the Democrats. They already lost the South. Minnesota and Wisconsin aren't going anywhere. Iowa and New Mexico were "on vacation" in 2004 and will be back in '08 and beyond. I could see Colorado going for the Dems since the vote was so close last time. New Hampshire might go back to being a Republican state. Ohio and Missouri will continue to be swing states.

Also, Illinois will only continue to get more liberal. This is the first time in years that Illinois has had two Democratic Senators and a Democratic Governor. Illinois also voted Republican from 1968-1988. Cook County (the county Chicago is in) only gains more political power. It won't reach battleground status anytime soon.

[TomC]

ARIZ AND VA

[Sam Spade]

It really all depends on who gets nominated.  Tell me that, and I'll answer the question.

Different nominees develop different coalitions that makes certain states swing one way or another.  Sometimes, its a swing that doesn't swing back, other times, no.

[Gustaf]

I've been wondering for some time about the Interior West. Why did it swing from heavy to lean Democratic from 1896 to 1948 (roughly) to heavily GOP ever since? Does anyone know about this?

[tarheel-leftist85]

Vermonts:  Virginia, Colorado (these will be fairly Democratic by 2016)
West Virginias:  Missouri, Tennessee, Arkansas (if we keep ignoring them)

[A18]

Vermonts:  Virginia, Colorado (these will be fairly Democratic by 2016)
West Virginias:  Missouri, Tennessee, Arkansas (if we keep ignoring them)

Uh, the GOP already has those three.

[Alcon]

Vermonts:  Virginia, Colorado (these will be fairly Democratic by 2016)
West Virginias:  Missouri, Tennessee, Arkansas (if we keep ignoring them)

Uh, the GOP already has those three.

One could reasonably interpret it as this year - Vermont trended heavily Democratic (that is, Bush lost vote share - he only did that in two states) and West Virginia trended heavily Republican.

[WalterMitty]

Vermonts:  Virginia, Colorado (these will be fairly Democratic by 2016)
West Virginias:  Missouri, Tennessee, Arkansas (if we keep ignoring them)

huh?  virginia is the next vermont?

no.  try again

[Smash255]

Vermonts:  Virginia, Colorado (these will be fairly Democratic by 2016)
West Virginias:  Missouri, Tennessee, Arkansas (if we keep ignoring them)

huh?  virginia is the next vermont?

no.  try again

Their is no question Virginia i moving leftward.  Northern Virginia is moving HARD to the left.  In regards to the National average Virginia was actually closer to the National Average in 04 than Michigan was.  Now  it won't be a hard Dem state like Vermont is now, but their is no reason not to believe that Virginia could be a real batleground in the near future (perhaps 08, if not easily by 2012) and shortly after that could become a lean Dem state along the lines of PA, MN & MI.  The hard Dem trend & the large population growth in Northern VA is just too large for that not to happen, also even though still strongly GOP even some of the Richmond burbs have been drifting Democrat as well.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

ok so what's going to happen when THAT happens?

[adam]

My guess would be Conneticuit. The state has always been generally right wing on most issues and I think that once Lieberman is out of office there that the state will fall into the right wing abyss possible taking New Hampshire with it.

[Cubby]

My guess would be Conneticuit. The state has always been generally right wing on most issues and I think that once Lieberman is out of office there that the state will fall into the right wing abyss possible taking New Hampshire with it.

I don't mean to be rude, but thats the dumbest thing I've heard all month.

"Generally right wing on most issues"? Our Assembly (legislature) passed a civil unions bill and our Republican Governor signed it without any pressure from the courts. We are one of the most socially liberal states nationally, although we aren't at the Vermont or Berkeley stage yet.

And Joe Lieberman isn't going anywhere. He will be re-elected in November. Besides Jodi Rell and Chris Shays, there aren't any popular Republican officials in the state.

[TeePee4Prez]

I'm surprised no one chose my pick, New Jersey.  There were a few polls that showed it close for 2004, and there is plenty of incentive for NJ to vote Republican.
On our side, I think South Dakota and Montana were good choices by those who chose them.  Also, Wyoming should be noted.  Not that it will happen any time soon, but when Dick Cheney leaves office, WY will surely score some more points on the Democratic side.  This map seems to help my point.  Idaho should also be noted as trend toward us.

9/11 Bounce.  Not happening long term.  NJ is way too socially liberal for this Republican party.  The problem for us Dems in NJ is we get a lot of bad press there, but politically the state is not at all conservative except for South Central NJ and the Northwest/North Central mountains and parts of the I-287 corridor.  Even the I-287 corridor and Ocean/Monmouth counties are more or less libertarian.

[bullmoose88]

I'm surprised no one chose my pick, New Jersey.  There were a few polls that showed it close for 2004, and there is plenty of incentive for NJ to vote Republican.
On our side, I think South Dakota and Montana were good choices by those who chose them.  Also, Wyoming should be noted.  Not that it will happen any time soon, but when Dick Cheney leaves office, WY will surely score some more points on the Democratic side.  This map seems to help my point.  Idaho should also be noted as trend toward us.

9/11 Bounce.  Not happening long term.  NJ is way too socially liberal for this Republican party.  The problem for us Dems in NJ is we get a lot of bad press there, but politically the state is not at all conservative except for South Central NJ and the Northwest/North Central mountains and parts of the I-287 corridor.  Even the I-287 corridor and Ocean/Monmouth counties are more or less libertarian.

That depends. New Jersey, even when times were tough for the GOP in 92 and 96, always gave the GOP nominee a steady base of support (Bush Sr. and Dole both broke 40% in NJ even when they were getting creamed elsewhere in the northeast...ie NY).

I think with NJ its the case Sam laid out. If the GOP nominates someone who is able to build a particular type coalition then I think NJ could become a reasonably reliable GOP state (as it was from 68-88, lets not forget GOP success there), or at the very least a definite swing state.

I think even though Bush came sorta close to winning NJ in 2004, I think he was the reason that ultimately the dems held on there. If Bush is the worst candidate the GOP nominates in the next 20 years, then the GOP could break NJ from the dem fold.

Granted, the GOP has to avoid either the ultra conservative or the uberstupid. Whether it does that...we'll see.

[Nym90]

I'm surprised no one chose my pick, New Jersey.  There were a few polls that showed it close for 2004, and there is plenty of incentive for NJ to vote Republican.
On our side, I think South Dakota and Montana were good choices by those who chose them.  Also, Wyoming should be noted.  Not that it will happen any time soon, but when Dick Cheney leaves office, WY will surely score some more points on the Democratic side.  This map seems to help my point.  Idaho should also be noted as trend toward us.

9/11 Bounce.  Not happening long term.  NJ is way too socially liberal for this Republican party.  The problem for us Dems in NJ is we get a lot of bad press there, but politically the state is not at all conservative except for South Central NJ and the Northwest/North Central mountains and parts of the I-287 corridor.  Even the I-287 corridor and Ocean/Monmouth counties are more or less libertarian.

That depends. New Jersey, even when times were tough for the GOP in 92 and 96, always gave the GOP nominee a steady base of support (Bush Sr. and Dole both broke 40% in NJ even when they were getting creamed elsewhere in the northeast...ie NY).

I think with NJ its the case Sam laid out. If the GOP nominates someone who is able to build a particular type coalition then I think NJ could become a reasonably reliable GOP state (as it was from 68-88, lets not forget GOP success there), or at the very least a definite swing state.

I think even though Bush came sorta close to winning NJ in 2004, I think he was the reason that ultimately the dems held on there. If Bush is the worst candidate the GOP nominates in the next 20 years, then the GOP could break NJ from the dem fold.

Granted, the GOP has to avoid either the ultra conservative or the uberstupid. Whether it does that...we'll see.

Correction: Dole got less than 36 percent in NJ in 1996. Bush did do decently in 1992 with 41 percent, however.

1996 was really the year that cemented the Northeast as a Democratic stronghold; Bush did reasonably well in the Nrotheast in 1992 even though he didn't win a state, but he was at least fairly competitive in several and some such as NJ were actually still more Republican than the national average.

[Alcon]

Fezzy, do you think part of the Republican-ward trend in New Jersey is liberal independents who dislike the Democratic Party's local corruption, which bounced up the ticket?

[MissCatholic]

We have never seen the affect of a democratic party running hard in 50 states. 20 yes, but 50 we cant predict for certain what will happen.

for republicans though
Hawaii is a state trending republican. The longer we remain fighting this crusade, the retirement of two democratic senators means and the emergence of moderate republicans in the state,then the state could go red.

New Jersey is a state that is feeling a lack of identity. They have useless democrats and republicans. If the republicans can find a figurehead then they could get the independents back into politics and could turn new jersey red. Forrester and Corzines campaign showed that the nastier it gets, the more likely the people will vote democrat. You need an independent republican with abit of star appeal.

for democrats
North Carolina and Colorado (its going to be solid blue by 2016)

[Josh/Devilman88]

We have never seen the affect of a democratic party running hard in 50 states. 20 yes, but 50 we cant predict for certain what will happen.

for republicans though
Hawaii is a state trending republican. The longer we remain fighting this crusade, the retirement of two democratic senators means and the emergence of moderate republicans in the state,then the state could go red.

New Jersey is a state that is feeling a lack of identity. They have useless democrats and republicans. If the republicans can find a figurehead then they could get the independents back into politics and could turn new jersey red. Forrester and Corzines campaign showed that the nastier it gets, the more likely the people will vote democrat. You need an independent republican with abit of star appeal.

for democrats
North Carolina and Colorado (its going to be solid blue by 2016)

I don't think you could be more wrong.  Hawaii is staying put, New Jersey independents decide every election, North Carolina is nowhere near even beginning to "trend" Democrat, and Colorado will not continue to move any further left expecially if Bush grants amnesty.

For all we know Utah will be a Democrat strong hold.

[Virginian87]

I don't think you could be more wrong.  Hawaii is staying put, New Jersey independents decide every election, North Carolina is nowhere near even beginning to "trend" Democrat, and Colorado will not continue to move any further left expecially if Bush grants amnesty.

Believe it or not, I think Democrats could be successful in the North Carolina.  The suburbs of the Raleigh-Durham "Research Triangle" area as well as Metropolitan Charlotte are becoming more and more the home of white-collar professionals, many of whom have moved in from the North.  These sort of areas were termed "the ideopolis" by Ruy Teixeira and John Judis in their book The Emerging Democratic Majority If the Democrats moderate their message on certain social issues in statewide and national elections, it is possible to win these suburbs, which are constantly growing and make up a good proportion of the state's poulation.  A good example of Democratic progress in places like these is the inroads Democrats ahve made in Loudoun and Prince William counties in Northern Virginia.  These counties were once Republican strongholds but in the last two statewide elections, Democrats picked up seats in the House of Delegates and Tim Kaine won both counties in his bid for governor. 

North Carolina Democrats could also adopt a more populist economic message in rural areas and in smaller towns like Salisbury, Asheville, and the Greensboro-Winston-Salem-Hickory area.  I think it wuold play off well in statewide elections.  It seemed to work for Jim Hunt and Mike Easley.

[Smash255]

We have never seen the affect of a democratic party running hard in 50 states. 20 yes, but 50 we cant predict for certain what will happen.

for republicans though
Hawaii is a state trending republican. The longer we remain fighting this crusade, the retirement of two democratic senators means and the emergence of moderate republicans in the state,then the state could go red.

New Jersey is a state that is feeling a lack of identity. They have useless democrats and republicans. If the republicans can find a figurehead then they could get the independents back into politics and could turn new jersey red. Forrester and Corzines campaign showed that the nastier it gets, the more likely the people will vote democrat. You need an independent republican with abit of star appeal.

for democrats
North Carolina and Colorado (its going to be solid blue by 2016)

I don't think you could be more wrong.  Hawaii is staying put, New Jersey independents decide every election, North Carolina is nowhere near even beginning to "trend" Democrat, and Colorado will not continue to move any further left expecially if Bush grants amnesty.

Hawaii is staying put, North Carolina is moving ever so slightly leftward, new jersey is Democratic.  As far as Colorado not trending more Democratic due to the immigration situation, that is a load of crap.  Most of Colorado is not filled with Tom Tancredo nutcases, the ski resort areas are flying leftward.  Suburban Denver is seeing much the same situation you see in the suburban north east & middle atlantic a strong Dem trend.   A trend which will continue.  Co is a major player in 08, and could possibily even be a Dem leaning tossup.  Outside of the Colorado Springs area, the state is just not nearly conservative enough with the current shape of the GOP national party to remain Republican.

[J. J.]

Wisconsin and Michigan. 

[Alcon]

Wisconsin and Michigan. 

Moving in opposite directions?  That would be surprising.

[Smash255]

Wisconsin and Michigan. 

I doubt it.  Compare 96 to 2004 in the depature from National average in both states.  Very little change (basically a point or two).  Wisconsin swung more in the GOP direction from 96 to 00 compared o the National average, but swung back to the Dems in 04 against the National average.  Michigan has inched to the Dems against the National average from 96 to 04, but the changes have been pretty small.