State Changes in 2004

[angus]

Given those choices:  NEW MEXICO.

[angus]

I'll bite.  My boss is from NM and he's a flaming Democrat.  An angry vitriolic democrat obsessed with engaging in the sort of educational pop psychology that democrats are so fond of with Republicans such as Bush, Reagan, and Lincoln, in particular, and Hoover to a lesser extent.  He says there is no way NM is going to go to Bush.  Reason enough for me to think that it is.  But since I have other reasons, I'll state them.  Primarily, it's the inroads made by the GOP with the spanish-speaking population there.  Sure, they do not turn out to vote in great numbers like other segments, but every little bit helps.  All you need is 378 more!  Not to mention the fact it's prototypically southwestern.  Clean air and low taxes.  High-spirited cowboys and such.  I was in NM just a couple of months ago.  Saw lots of BC stickers.  And Margaret, a woman I knew in graduate school, the staunchest Republican I have ever met in my life couldn't wait to get out of Boston when she finished and head straight to New Mexico.  Which she did.  Promptly.  I realize that bit of anecdotal evidence may not mean much to most people.  But it does to me.  I say NM will go to Bush.  (somebody will drag this out eight months from now and make me eat it if Bush loses.)

[angus]

Astute observations, all.  And we could talk about the convenience stores in northwestern NM and northeastern AZ with a few old brown bananas and a few loaves of bread and nothing else on empty shelves.  The third world right here in the four corners of the USA.  And the GOP is lacking in the 'compassionate' I realize.  It is a total guess.  I surrender.  

But be careful if you seriously attempt to call your taxes high.  Or expenses for that matter.  People here post from places where the taxes really are high.

[angus]

Given those choices:  NEW MEXICO.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/23/politics/campaign/23ECON.html