Which of these states will first go Democrat?

[English]

VA will go Democrat in 2008. ND will go Democrat in maybe 2016.

[AuH2O]

At least none of you are betting on this stuff... you'd be in the poorhouse in  a hurry...

[MODU]

You mean in one election, or permanently?

Because none of those will turn into DNC land under the current 2 party arrangement.

Virginia is the most overrated 'trending' place in the US. The lefties in Northern Virginia are government employees and trial lawyers and the like, and there is a limit on how many of them can live there; i.e., most of the new growth is party-neutral.

Look at what happened in Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado when middle and upper middle class Californians fled- those states picked up GOP voters. The high tech growth in N Virginia mostly attracts moderate Republicans.

The Western part of the state is trending GOP because of social issues. That will stem any residual growth in Arlington and parts of Fairfax. In the state legistlature, the GOP has gone from a minority party to holding 2/3 of the seats in about a decade. That's not a state trending hard to the Dems.

Mark Warner is similar to Evan Bayh. Democrats of that ilk can win anyway, just as Mitt Romney won in Mass.

Plus, um, doesn't this thread assume the nation is trending Dem? That's a pretty bad assumption if he you look at party registration.

You are correct that there is a limit to the expansion of the Democrats in Northern Virginia...they are almost exclusively Government employees and human vultures (lawyers). However, a Democratic administration would lead to the creation of MORE government jobs, which helps the Democrats. And as far as a "lack of space" for development, that's not entirely true. People are just moving farther and farther South on the I-95 corridor. I could not believe how different Fredericksburg (for example) was the last time I visited. This used to be a quasi-rural area, but not any longer, it looks like a cheap DC suburb now, especially in terms of the racial and ethnic makeup...ie...more Democratic voters.

Not my discussion on NOVA sprawl the other day.    And you're right, "trending" democrat is an overstatement.  Your true meter for VA trending comes from Richmond and Roanoke - the two main cities of VA which are not military/US Gov't related.  When their suburbs start flipping from Republican to Democrat, then you will see a trend.  NOVA and VA Beach/Norfolk are unreliable measures since they are prodominantly US Military/Gov't workers/Gov't contractors.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Yeah, but can you really call Bayh a Democrat?

Many Dems feel the way you feel so, like BRTD said, he won't win the nomination.

Clinton had very little trouble in 1992.  If Bush gets reelected, look for the Dems to put a moderate ticket up.

Bayh-Stupak 2008!!!!!

Actually, it will probably be Hillary-Bayh.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yeah, but can you really call Bayh a Democrat?

Many Dems feel the way you feel so, like BRTD said, he won't win the nomination.

Clinton had very little trouble in 1992.  If Bush gets reelected, look for the Dems to put a moderate ticket up.

Bayh-Stupak 2008!!!!!

Actually, it will probably be Hillary-Bayh.

Stupak-Bayh sounds better

[they don't love you like i love you]

Yeah, but can you really call Bayh a Democrat?

Many Dems feel the way you feel so, like BRTD said, he won't win the nomination.

Clinton had very little trouble in 1992.  If Bush gets reelected, look for the Dems to put a moderate ticket up.

Bayh-Stupak 2008!!!!!

Actually, it will probably be Hillary-Bayh.

Bayh is far more conservative than Clinton, plus he's nowhere near as charasmatic or interesting. Read my whole post. Bayh brings nothing to any ticket, he wouldn't help with any state but Indiana, and no Dem could win Indiana anyway.

Hillary will never be nominated. Most Democrats are not crazy about her like all the right wing nuts seem to believe. I have to meet any of these die-hard Hillary fans interestingly.

[King]

Virginia

[© tweed]

Virginia probably.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Yeah, but can you really call Bayh a Democrat?

Beef,

No, Bayh is clearly not a Democrat who has a true place in the modern Democratic Party. He definitely should switch parties, along with other Senators like Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson.

I think that, as long as the Greens continue to syphon off the Left of the Left of the Democrats, and the Republicans continue with their radical social agenda, there will always be a place for the Blue Dogs in the party.

Bayh, Lieberman, Nelson, Miller, etc, are Democrats for a reason.  They wouldn't find a place in the Republican party, because that party, on the national level, keeps a very strict party line, and these folks would want to cross it in too many places.

Remember how Howard Dean said that he represents the "Democratic Wing" of the Democratic Party? Well, guys like Evan Bayh represent the "American Wing" of the Democratic Party....which means they have no home in a party which would allow American foreign policy to be determined by the world opinion, the United Nations and select European nations.

I think the number of Democrats who would truly throw our foreign policy to the UN is very small.  Most Democrats voted for the war resolution, because they felt that our national security was at stake.  Most Democrats would tell you that, when it comes to our security, the UN can go bugger itself.  But on the matter of taking "police actions" against rogue states that are not a security threat, where it is purely a matter of international law and human rights (as was the case with Iraq) it's not the responsibility of the United States to enforce.  It's the responsibility of the UN.  And if they're too chickensh*t to enforce their own resolutions and laws, and uphold basic human rights - which is what's supposed to be their whole purpose - why should that become OUR problem?  It's vigilatism, and is not an appropriate way for the US to conduct itself on the world stage.

I think that is the position of most Democrats, it's not anti-American, and it happens to be one I agree with.

[TommyC1776]

I say Idaho since it's close to a liberal state, Oregon.

[MHS2002]

Virginia...but I'll do my best to stop it!

[they don't love you like i love you]

Bayh, Lieberman, Nelson, Miller, etc, are Democrats for a reason.  They wouldn't find a place in the Republican party, because that party, on the national level, keeps a very strict party line, and these folks would want to cross it in too many places.

Miller doesn't fall into this category. The only reason he's still a Democrat is so people can listen to him when he whines about the party, where if became a Republican he'd just be written off a cheap partisan hack. Your second sentence does not apply to him, since he has voted the Republican party line on almost everything the past two years.

[they don't love you like i love you]

I say Idaho since it's close to a liberal state, Oregon.

um, do you have any clue what the part of Oregon that borders Idaho is like?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Sweet, a 1-1-1-1-1-1 tie for 3rd place.

[nclib]

I say Idaho since it's close to a liberal state, Oregon.

And VA borders MD; the Dakotas border Minnesota; and Indiana borders Ill. and Mich.

[they don't love you like i love you]

The part of SD that borders Minnesota is actually more liberal than the part of Minnesota it borders, at least the southern part, that's also true of the area around Fargo with the ND/Minnesota border. However the part of Oregon that borders Idaho is just as right wing as Idaho.

[classical liberal]

You mean in one election, or permanently?

Because none of those will turn into DNC land under the current 2 party arrangement.

Virginia is the most overrated 'trending' place in the US. The lefties in Northern Virginia are government employees and trial lawyers and the like, and there is a limit on how many of them can live there; i.e., most of the new growth is party-neutral.

Look at what happened in Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado when middle and upper middle class Californians fled- those states picked up GOP voters. The high tech growth in N Virginia mostly attracts moderate Republicans.

The Western part of the state is trending GOP because of social issues. That will stem any residual growth in Arlington and parts of Fairfax. In the state legistlature, the GOP has gone from a minority party to holding 2/3 of the seats in about a decade. That's not a state trending hard to the Dems.

Mark Warner is similar to Evan Bayh. Democrats of that ilk can win anyway, just as Mitt Romney won in Mass.

Plus, um, doesn't this thread assume the nation is trending Dem? That's a pretty bad assumption if he you look at party registration.

You are correct that there is a limit to the expansion of the Democrats in Northern Virginia...they are almost exclusively Government employees and human vultures (lawyers). However, a Democratic administration would lead to the creation of MORE government jobs, which helps the Democrats. And as far as a "lack of space" for development, that's not entirely true. People are just moving farther and farther South on the I-95 corridor. I could not believe how different Fredericksburg (for example) was the last time I visited. This used to be a quasi-rural area, but not any longer, it looks like a cheap DC suburb now, especially in terms of the racial and ethnic makeup...ie...more Democratic voters.

Not my discussion on NOVA sprawl the other day.    And you're right, "trending" democrat is an overstatement.  Your true meter for VA trending comes from Richmond and Roanoke - the two main cities of VA which are not military/US Gov't related.  When their suburbs start flipping from Republican to Democrat, then you will see a trend.  NOVA and VA Beach/Norfolk are unreliable measures since they are prodominantly US Military/Gov't workers/Gov't contractors.

Chesterfield, VA was Bush +51% in 1988 and Bush +27 in 2000.
Henrico, VA was Bush +39 in 1988 and Bush +11 in 2000.
Richmond City, VA was Dukakis +14 in 1988 and Gore +38 in 2000.  
Colonial Heights, VA was Bush +58 in 1988 and Bush +42 in 2000.
Hopewell, VA was Bush +29 in 1988 and Bush +10 in 2000.
Petersburg, VA was Dukakis +31 in 1988 and Gore +61 in 2000.
Prince George, VA was Bush +33 in 1988 and Bush +21 in 2000.
Dinwiddie, VA was Bush +10 in 1988 and Bush +9 in 2000.
Powhatan, VA was Bush +46 in 1988 and Bush +41 in 2000.
Hanover, VA was Bush +55 in 1988 and Bush +38 in 2000.
Goochland, VA was Bush +26 in 1988 and Bush +23 in 2000.
New Kent, VA was Bush +34 in 1988 and Bush +29 in 2000.


That's quite a bit of movement towards the Democrats in the Richmond area.

[Democratic Hawk]

If a guy like Evan Bayh runs, it's possible he could win Indiana.

I've noticed that Senator Bayh commands much bipartisan support from Indiana and I think his moderate politics would make him a good Democratic presidential nominee.

Does any one think Bayh could attract bipartisan support on a national level? Sufficient enough to win.

I think of those states Virginia is trending Democrat and may well be the closest southern result after Florida and Arkansas.

Dave

[nomorelies]

Bayh would of battered Bush

[No more McShame]

I say Idaho since it's close to a liberal state, Oregon.

Hmmm.... I'm from Oregon.  The state is not liberal.  Portland is liberal.  Last time I drove from Portland to Idaho it took about 8 hours.  Not exactly neighborly.  Outside of Portland, Corvallis, and Eugene the rest of the state is very conservative.

[nclib]

I vote Virginia.

Note: If you think two or more of these will go Democratic at the same time, vote which one you think is more likely.

Am I missing something?
What are 'these' states?

There used to be a poll at the top of this thread.

It was lost when Dave Leip upgraded the forum.

The options were: (some of these were grouped)

Idaho, Wyo., Utah, N. Dak., S. Dak., Neb., Kan., Okla., Ind., Alaska, and Va.

[Matusleo]

I vote Virginia naturally. 

Somebody said that once the Roanoke suburbs start to flip than we can expect to see the state become competitive.  Well, I'm in the neighboring county to Roanoke, and I'm starting to see my area go rather comepllingly Democratic.  The Democrats swept all the lcoal races in the last election here, and there is far more activism on the aprt of the Kerry team in my area than the Bush team.

Somebody also said that the western part of Virginia was trending Republican.  I think the opposite is true.  I think it is headed towards the Democrats.  We are seeing a lot of folks moving down here from the Northern Virginia region who are sick and tired of the commute.  These people are more culturally liberal than the people who grew up in this region in general. 

In fact, one only has to look at the map of Virginia by county in the last competitive election to see this trend coming to life.  In the gubernatorial races back in 2001, Mark Warner(D) only won Arlington and Fairfax in the northern third of the state, but he won about three fifths of all counties in the southern two thirds of the state, including a good portion along the western border.   Heck, he almost won Harrisonburg, which has long been a bastion of Republicanism.

And then in the 2003 elections for the VA legislature, Demcorats actually picked up seats in the State House!  That's something they haven't done in a very long time. 

Now, VA is not on its way to being a perenially Democratic state, but I think that it is on its way to becoming a battleground state in the next ten to twelve years.  Kerry can win it this year, as polls have shown the race very close, even Bush was leading afte the GOp convention.  With the momentum now on Kerry's side, you never know just what might happen.

[A18]

Kerry has no chance in Virginia. The state's solid GOP and it's staying that way.

[Matusleo]

Kerry has no chance in Virginia. The state's solid GOP and it's staying that way.

Which is why Bush leads only within the margin of error in Virginia, eh? 

[A18]

It's +6 Mason-Dixon, +11 Survey USA

Bush is to Virginia as Kerry is to Washington. Only a complete hyperpartisan would predict a Kerry landslide, which is the only thing that would move VA into the Democratic column.

Just because you live here doesn't mean the state is in play. I'm sure if I was in California, I'd like to think it was a battleground state too.