The Republican Party has to become more competitive in blue states?

[Alcon]

I mean we need to mobilize and keep the liberals home

Isn't that kind of what you'd want to do everywhere?  Why is Pennsylvania specifically good for that?

That area is not the area that is liberal, the liberal area is Burlington which accounts for 1/3 of the population

Burlington doesn't account for 1/3 of the population - more like 6%.  Chittenden County accounts for just under a quarter of the population, though.  It's not that the liberal area is Burlington; it's that the liberal area is all but the northeastern part of the state.

They need to play to their strengths and try to draw attention what people like about them

That's almost as brilliant and detailed as your "make conservatives vote, keep liberals home" plan.

Their current economy under Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D) is exactly why I think it will swing

You think they will blame the governor for their economy, and deliver a heavy Republican return?  Uh, 'kay.

It would take a 52%+ win for Rossi which is not out of the question

And why would Rossi winning 52%+ help?  You do realize that virtually the only thing Rossi is running on thus far is being slighted in 2004.  Some people are still annoyed about that, but that doesn't transfer over.  And Washingtonians were more than happy to deliver a seven-point federal margin while delivering basically a tie...why would a four-point gubernatorial swing guarantee a seven-point federal swing later?  I'll answer for you: it wouldn't even suggest it.

I just don't think the votes are there for it to happen

Do you really think about why you believe these things, or is this just a tingly feeling you get?

[Alcon]

I see. Isn't there a lot of upper-middle class people moving in though?

The median household income in Hawai'i for 2004 was $51,359, 15.85% above national average.

In 2000, the median household income was $49,82; this was 18.64% above national average.

Five-year population growth being only 2.2%, I wouldn't exactly say that Hawai'i's population has drifted all that much since 2000, let alone 2000, and I don't see reason to believe its affluence has increased in a meaningful way.

[Kevin]

I see. Isn't there a lot of upper-middle class people moving in though?

The median household income in Hawai'i for 2004 was $51,359, 15.85% above national average.

In 2000, the median household income was $49,82; this was 18.64% above national average.

Five-year population growth being only 2.2%, I wouldn't exactly say that Hawai'i's population has drifted all that much since 2000, let alone 2000, and I don't see reason to believe its affluence has increased in a meaningful way.

Overall I think Demographics are against the Democrats in Hawai'i even with it's very large Asian population,I think if the Republicans wouldd stress more pro-business in this state we would be able to make alot of gains in the long term.

[Person Man]

I see. Isn't there a lot of upper-middle class people moving in though?

The median household income in Hawai'i for 2004 was $51,359, 15.85% above national average.

In 2000, the median household income was $49,82; this was 18.64% above national average.

Five-year population growth being only 2.2%, I wouldn't exactly say that Hawai'i's population has drifted all that much since 2000, let alone 2000, and I don't see reason to believe its affluence has increased in a meaningful way.

Overall I think Demographics are against the Democrats in Hawai'i even with it's very large Asian population,I think if the Republicans wouldd stress more pro-business in this state we would be able to make alot of gains in the long term.

I dunno...affluence seems to have leveled. Another reason could just be that Hawaii somehow reacted to 9/11 just New Jersey did....but that wouldn't seem to be a viable  explanation due to geography.

[Jaggerjack]

I see. Isn't there a lot of upper-middle class people moving in though?

The median household income in Hawai'i for 2004 was $51,359, 15.85% above national average.

In 2000, the median household income was $49,82; this was 18.64% above national average.

Five-year population growth being only 2.2%, I wouldn't exactly say that Hawai'i's population has drifted all that much since 2000, let alone 2000, and I don't see reason to believe its affluence has increased in a meaningful way.

Overall I think Demographics are against the Democrats in Hawai'i even with it's very large Asian population,I think if the Republicans wouldd stress more pro-business in this state we would be able to make alot of gains in the long term.

I dunno...affluence seems to have leveled. Another reason could just be that Hawaii somehow reacted to 9/11 just New Jersey did....but that wouldn't seem to be a viable  explanation due to geography.

The ONLY people who think that Hawaii will flip in 2008 are those who don't know crap about its politics (colin), Republicans overhyped with Lingle's reelection, and hacks (Nik).

[Person Man]

I see. Isn't there a lot of upper-middle class people moving in though?

The median household income in Hawai'i for 2004 was $51,359, 15.85% above national average.

In 2000, the median household income was $49,82; this was 18.64% above national average.

Five-year population growth being only 2.2%, I wouldn't exactly say that Hawai'i's population has drifted all that much since 2000, let alone 2000, and I don't see reason to believe its affluence has increased in a meaningful way.

Overall I think Demographics are against the Democrats in Hawai'i even with it's very large Asian population,I think if the Republicans wouldd stress more pro-business in this state we would be able to make alot of gains in the long term.

I dunno...affluence seems to have leveled. Another reason could just be that Hawaii somehow reacted to 9/11 just New Jersey did....but that wouldn't seem to be a viable  explanation due to geography.

The ONLY people who think that Hawaii will flip in 2008 are those who don't know crap about its politics (colin), Republicans overhyped with Lingle's reelection, and hacks (Nik).

Lingle, I wouldn't be hyped about her. She is actively undermining the RNC platform on the biggest issues, such as abortion.

I am not worried about Hawaii flipping, I am kind of worried that it could be purple by say, 2016.

[Jaggerjack]

I see. Isn't there a lot of upper-middle class people moving in though?

The median household income in Hawai'i for 2004 was $51,359, 15.85% above national average.

In 2000, the median household income was $49,82; this was 18.64% above national average.

Five-year population growth being only 2.2%, I wouldn't exactly say that Hawai'i's population has drifted all that much since 2000, let alone 2000, and I don't see reason to believe its affluence has increased in a meaningful way.

Overall I think Demographics are against the Democrats in Hawai'i even with it's very large Asian population,I think if the Republicans wouldd stress more pro-business in this state we would be able to make alot of gains in the long term.

I dunno...affluence seems to have leveled. Another reason could just be that Hawaii somehow reacted to 9/11 just New Jersey did....but that wouldn't seem to be a viable  explanation due to geography.

The ONLY people who think that Hawaii will flip in 2008 are those who don't know crap about its politics (colin), Republicans overhyped with Lingle's reelection, and hacks (Nik).

Lingle, I wouldn't be hyped about her. She is actively undermining the RNC platform on the biggest issues, such as abortion.

I am not worried about Hawaii flipping, I am kind of worried that it could be purple by say, 2016.

Nothing to really worry about. Hawaii just acted on its pro-incumbent bias. In 2016, assuming a popular Democratic incumbent just left office, it'll stay Democratic, and by a good margin.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

In a generation, Americans will hate Reagan as much as Russians hate Stalin or Yeltson.

[Alcon]

Overall I think Demographics are against the Democrats in Hawai'i even with it's very large Asian population,I think if the Republicans wouldd stress more pro-business in this state we would be able to make alot of gains in the long term.

I'm walking on thin ice here, as I don't know as much about Hawai'i as I should.

Demographics in Hawai'i aren't really changing...so I don't see how they're against Democrats.  It is a pro-free trade state, in a similar way to the way Washington and California are.  Free trade has been good to all three, but that doesn't mean they are fond of big business.

Whites tend to be the most Democratic group in Hawai'i, actually.  Whites in Hawai'i are probably the most Democratic of any West Coast state, in fact.  It's minorities and the incumbency effect that make it competitive.  Bush won Pacific Islanders.

I'm not sure they're the kind of people who are exactly in love with free trade.  They certainly are probably not ultra-found of business.

[Kevin]

I see. Isn't there a lot of upper-middle class people moving in though?

The median household income in Hawai'i for 2004 was $51,359, 15.85% above national average.

In 2000, the median household income was $49,82; this was 18.64% above national average.

Five-year population growth being only 2.2%, I wouldn't exactly say that Hawai'i's population has drifted all that much since 2000, let alone 2000, and I don't see reason to believe its affluence has increased in a meaningful way.

Overall I think Demographics are against the Democrats in Hawai'i even with it's very large Asian population,I think if the Republicans wouldd stress more pro-business in this state we would be able to make alot of gains in the long term.

I dunno...affluence seems to have leveled. Another reason could just be that Hawaii somehow reacted to 9/11 just New Jersey did....but that wouldn't seem to be a viable  explanation due to geography.

The ONLY people who think that Hawaii will flip in 2008 are those who don't know crap about its politics (colin), Republicans overhyped with Lingle's reelection, and hacks (Nik).

Also keep in mind the state has a very large military population and it's politics are effected by the fact that it is economically dependent for everything on the mainland. 

[Jaggerjack]

I see. Isn't there a lot of upper-middle class people moving in though?

The median household income in Hawai'i for 2004 was $51,359, 15.85% above national average.

In 2000, the median household income was $49,82; this was 18.64% above national average.

Five-year population growth being only 2.2%, I wouldn't exactly say that Hawai'i's population has drifted all that much since 2000, let alone 2000, and I don't see reason to believe its affluence has increased in a meaningful way.

Overall I think Demographics are against the Democrats in Hawai'i even with it's very large Asian population,I think if the Republicans wouldd stress more pro-business in this state we would be able to make alot of gains in the long term.

I dunno...affluence seems to have leveled. Another reason could just be that Hawaii somehow reacted to 9/11 just New Jersey did....but that wouldn't seem to be a viable  explanation due to geography.

The ONLY people who think that Hawaii will flip in 2008 are those who don't know crap about its politics (colin), Republicans overhyped with Lingle's reelection, and hacks (Nik).

Also keep in mind the state has a very large military population and it's politics are effected by the fact that it is economically dependent for everything on the mainland. 

1. The retired military proportion declined from 2000-2005.
2. The military has horrible voter turnout. Besides which, did you consider that they can cast absentee ballots for their home state?

[Person Man]

I see. Isn't there a lot of upper-middle class people moving in though?

The median household income in Hawai'i for 2004 was $51,359, 15.85% above national average.

In 2000, the median household income was $49,82; this was 18.64% above national average.

Five-year population growth being only 2.2%, I wouldn't exactly say that Hawai'i's population has drifted all that much since 2000, let alone 2000, and I don't see reason to believe its affluence has increased in a meaningful way.

Overall I think Demographics are against the Democrats in Hawai'i even with it's very large Asian population,I think if the Republicans wouldd stress more pro-business in this state we would be able to make alot of gains in the long term.

I dunno...affluence seems to have leveled. Another reason could just be that Hawaii somehow reacted to 9/11 just New Jersey did....but that wouldn't seem to be a viable  explanation due to geography.

The ONLY people who think that Hawaii will flip in 2008 are those who don't know crap about its politics (colin), Republicans overhyped with Lingle's reelection, and hacks (Nik).

Lingle, I wouldn't be hyped about her. She is actively undermining the RNC platform on the biggest issues, such as abortion.

I am not worried about Hawaii flipping, I am kind of worried that it could be purple by say, 2016.

Nothing to really worry about. Hawaii just acted on its pro-incumbent bias. In 2016, assuming a popular Democratic incumbent just left office, it'll stay Democratic, and by a good margin.

Makes sense.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Isn't that kind of what you'd want to do everywhere?  Why is Pennsylvania specifically good for that?

Because there is a decent number of staunch Republican voters, what I'm trying to get at is there aren't as many voters to flip as other states and the votes you have are staying with you.

Burlington doesn't account for 1/3 of the population - more like 6%.  Chittenden County accounts for just under a quarter of the population, though.  It's not that the liberal area is Burlington; it's that the liberal area is all but the northeastern part of the state.

I was referring to the Burlington Metropolitan Area which accounts for over 200,000 and 1/3 of the state.  That area is not going conservative anytime soon.

That's almost as brilliant and detailed as your "make conservatives vote, keep liberals home" plan.

I don't even know what state this is referring to anymore, I think it's New Hampshire in which case guns and taxes

You think they will blame the governor for their economy, and deliver a heavy Republican return?  Uh, 'kay.

I don't see what is so non-sensical about that

Do you really think about why you believe these things, or is this just a tingly feeling you get?

I am trying to point out best possible scenarios, obviously states like PA, MI, and WI have much better chances than VT, NY, or MA, but yes I do believe what I am saying.

[Alcon]

Because there is a decent number of staunch Republican voters, what I'm trying to get at is there aren't as many voters to flip as other states and the votes you have are staying with you.

What is your basis for that claim?

I was referring to the Burlington Metropolitan Area which accounts for over 200,000 and 1/3 of the state.  That area is not going conservative anytime soon.

OK.

I don't even know what state this is referring to anymore, I think it's New Hampshire in which case guns and taxes

The GOP ran on taxes in New Hampshire, IIRC.  Remember the last-ditch "Democrats will raise your taxes" line?  How well did that work in New Hampshire?  Not well.

Guns and taxes certainly help the GOP in New Hampshire, but again, you can't ignore the issues that have resulted in huge losses in that state in the last few years.

I don't see what is so non-sensical about that

They're going to punish the national Dems because of Granholm, but not the national Republicans because of Bush?

I am trying to point out best possible scenarios, obviously states like PA, MI, and WI have much better chances than VT, NY, or MA, but yes I do believe what I am saying.

Is this a prediction, or the best-possible scenario?

[DownWithTheLeft]

What is your basis for that claim?

The fact that it has been close and that they have a Republican controlled state government except for the executive branch I believe.  They also have a Republican senator and recently had 2 Republican senators.  2006 was a fluke year for Pennsylvania in my opinion.

The GOP ran on taxes in New Hampshire, IIRC.  Remember the last-ditch "Democrats will raise your taxes" line?  How well did that work in New Hampshire?  Not well.Guns and taxes certainly help the GOP in New Hampshire, but again, you can't ignore the issues that have resulted in huge losses in that state in the last few years.

Worked well in 2000 and if things improve in Iraq it certainly could begin to work well again.

They're going to punish the national Dems because of Granholm, but not the national Republicans because of Bush?

I think Michigan voters are smart enough to realize the national economy is doing much better them themselves at the state level and want what the rest of the country is getting.  A better candidate than DeVos would have easily won that race.

I this a prediction, or the best-possible scenario?

Neither really, I'm just evaluating the Republicans chances at certain states

[Alcon]

The fact that it has been close and that they have a Republican controlled state government except for the executive branch I believe.  They also have a Republican senator and recently had 2 Republican senators.  2006 was a fluke year for Pennsylvania in my opinion.

And 2004 was too?  Because there was no difference in the other things back then.

Worked well in 2000 and if things improve in Iraq it certainly could begin to work well again.

They'd have to improve quite a bit to get to 2000 evenness levels.

I think Michigan voters are smart enough to realize the national economy is doing much better them themselves at the state level and want what the rest of the country is getting.  A better candidate than DeVos would have easily won that race.

You argue that Bush won't rub off on the Republican candidate, but Granholm will on the Democrat?  Why?

Neither really, I'm just evaluating the Republicans chances at certain states

So, it's a hackish prediction? 

[Nym90]

It's true that Devos was a bad candidate, but it's not like the race was close. It would've been very difficult to beat Granholm even with a strong candidate, given the anti-GOP national mood. Stabenow also won easily in 2006, as well, as does Levin, despite both being among the most liberal senators.

While it's true that Granholm isn't all that popular right now and that Michigan's economy is doing poorly, the blame is mostly being placed on Bush and the GOP much moreso than the Dems.

And of course there's still the war, which is highly unpopular in Michigan.

Now if a Democratic President comes into office in 2008 and the Dems hold control of Congress, and Michigan's economy is still bad come 2010, then yes, I would agree that Michigan could very well go Republican in 2010 in the gubernatorial race.

[12th Doctor]

There are two very easy ways that the GOP can become competetive in a number of blue states:

1) We need to finally come to the realization that Christian Fundamentalists want something different for America than even most other Conservatives want.  The level of rhetoric coming from many (not all, mind you) of these "Christian" preachers is approuching the level of Christian American Fascism.  There are a lot of people out there who are concerned with basic morality in this country, but they are understandably turned off by people who are using politics to advance their religious beliefs.  By taking the moral middle ground, we will acctually be taking the moral high ground.  About time we did that.

2) For a party that prides capitalist innovation, we have completely missed the boat on enery alternatives.  The slavish obidience to oil makes us look like we have our heads in the sand... well, acctually we do, but it is even worse that we should appear that way.  Get away from oil, bottom line.  If the world hits peak oil, which will happen, and we don't have viable alternatives, then we will be in trouble.  Do you realize how many different products use petrolium?

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

I may be personally in favor of a free market but I realize that neoliberal globalized finance capitalism is in its last days. Peak oil, the chaos from the singularity, the ongoing war between islam and everyone else, competition with India/China all will combine to kill it off.

[Person Man]

I may be personally in favor of a free market but I realize that neoliberal globalized finance capitalism is in its last days. Peak oil, the chaos from the singularity, the ongoing war between islam and everyone else, competition with India/China all will combine to kill it off.

I really don't know what would replace the global market, though.  I see the singularity as the biggest thing, though no one knows what that would look like.  I mean, we all know what losing your job to a Hindu man looks like or having planes crashing into the WTC and what 4 bucks a gallon looks like but....the singularity?

There are two very easy ways that the GOP can become competetive in a number of blue states:

1) We need to finally come to the realization that Christian Fundamentalists want something different for America than even most other Conservatives want.  The level of rhetoric coming from many (not all, mind you) of these "Christian" preachers is approuching the level of Christian American Fascism.  There are a lot of people out there who are concerned with basic morality in this country, but they are understandably turned off by people who are using politics to advance their religious beliefs.  By taking the moral middle ground, we will acctually be taking the moral high ground.  About time we did that.

2) For a party that prides capitalist innovation, we have completely missed the boat on enery alternatives.  The slavish obidience to oil makes us look like we have our heads in the sand... well, acctually we do, but it is even worse that we should appear that way.  Get away from oil, bottom line.  If the world hits peak oil, which will happen, and we don't have viable alternatives, then we will be in trouble.  Do you realize how many different products use petrolium?

That would mean "stop being a republican" to the base, however.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

The globalized economy is a house of cards and has been since the 70s when globalization began. When it has a big enough shock... say goodbye to globalization and a return to regional trade blocs.

[Person Man]

How do you get Toyotas, Sony or Volkswagens then? ..and would that happen? Could a neo-con or reactionairy just force ships from other countries to dock at American ports or airports, like the British did in the 1800s?

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

We can rebuild our industry. We don't need globalization or free trade and we'll need them less once nanotech fabers come online.

[Person Man]

We can rebuild our industry. We don't need globalization or free trade and we'll need them less once nanotech fabers come online.

Explain. 

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

America's deindustrialization is only due to us allowing east asia/india to run one way trade wats with us.