Rove; Nevada, New Hampshire and Indiana data suggests may never vote rep again.

[AngelFromKansas]

Karl Rove last night on Fox news suggested some states hid fears for the future of the republican party after Barack Obamas commanding victory in the presidential race.

On Nevada
'the early returns from Nevada are terrible news for the republican party. The party maintained around 400.000 votes but the democats blew it away with well over half a million votes. The worst thing is that 61% of women voted democrat which led to a loss of a republican house seat and 62% of people aged between 35-49 voted democrat. Its a serious electoral headache for the republicans as the state is growing and the data suggests its tilting heavily democratic.'

On New Hampshire
'the writing has been on the wall in the state for a while now. In 2004, we thought we won the state and were stunned at how well kerry did. In 2006, the two republican congressional representatives were blown away. In 2008, the senate has lost one of the most intelligent young republicans but more importantly the most popular republican in the state was destroyed. I dont know how a republican can win here in the future. its looking like a new vermont that used to be republican.'

On Indiana
'we won this state by nearly 20 pts in 2004. The democrats made some congressional gains in 2006 which was expected as the republicans were unpopular. What no-one expected was that they would all get re-elected in 2008 with such ease and that their democratic nominee for president would make the state so competitive. it looks like obama will carry the state. the early returns also provide a future look at the state and its not pretty for the republicans. 61% of voters aged over 60 voted repubican thats a very bad sign as it shows obama made considerable gains among other groups who will be the future electorate. This is also a model for the democratic party that will likely be used in other republican states. this isnt lke virginia or north carolina with huge shifts in population. this is a shift with the very people that voted republican for decades.'

[Lunar]

I agree on Nevada and New Hampshire.  Nevada is trending insanely away from the Republicans for irreversible demographic reasons.  Maybe in a decade or two, once the Republicans figure out how to appeal to Hispanics, they could compete in this state again (along with California?).  But yeah, this state is gone for Republicans.  I actually see this as Democratic for three or four decades barring landslide.  It's just trending too socially liberal without any signs of stopping.  Can the GOP make inroads among Hispanic voters faster than their rate of migration to Nevada?

New Hampshire represents white liberalism to its finest nowadays. It's becoming more and more like Vermont.  It has a great chance of coming back to the Republicans though.  Why?  Because if they ever hope to win again they have to be able to compete in every region.  Right now there is not a single GOP Congressman from New England.  That has to change if they want to be a national party.  So, if the GOP figures out their message problem, it's likely to show up again in states that are less legacy-Democrat states like NH.

For Indiana, it's a young state, but it was one of Obama's weakest states.  It's still more pro-GOP than any other Midwestern state.  I don't see why, supposing the next Republican presidential candidate competes in the Midwest (it's suicide not to, right?), Indiana wouldn't be at least a tossup in a close election, if not lean GOP.

Karl Rove is an ok analyst, but right now he is in the business of trying to get people to hire him as an analyst.  Bold, hard-to-refute predictions are a great way to do this, but I don't buy it.  Nevada is permanently gone for the GOP for a few cycles but Indiana is probably slightly favored to flip in 2012.

[AngelFromKansas]

I agree on Nevada and New Hampshire.  Nevada is trending insanely away from the Republicans for irreversible demographic reasons.  Maybe in a decade or two, once the Republicans figure out how to appeal to Hispanics, they could compete in this state again (along with California?).  But yeah, this state is gone for Republicans. 

New Hampshire represents white liberalism to its finest nowadays. It's becoming more and more like Vermont.  It has a great chance of coming back to the Republicans though.  Why?  Because if they ever hope to win again they have to be able to compete in every region.  Right now there is not a single GOP Congressman from New England.  That has to change if thy want to be a national party.  So, if the GOP figures out their message problem, it's likely to show up again in states that are less legacy-Democrat states like NH.

For Indiana, it's a young state, but it was one of Obama's weakest states.  It's still more pro-GOP than any other Midwestern state.  I don't see why, supposing the next Republican presidential candidate competes in the Midwest (it's suicide not to, right?), Indiana wouldn't be at least a tossup in a close election, if not lean GOP.

Karl Rove is an ok analyst, but right now he is in the business of trying to get people to hire him as an analyst.  Bold, hard-to-refute predictions are a great way to do this, but I don't buy it.  Nevada is permanently gone for the GOP for a few cycles but Indiana is probably slightly favored to flip in 2012.

i agree with your views.

indiana is 4-5points down on the national vote. the state is very conservative in some parts andobama got destroyed in alot of republican rural areas. democrats should be happy wit hte result but there aer still alot of problems with the party in certain parts of the country. it seems ut was a firm YES from states or a firm NO.

Arkansas, tennessee, louisiana, oklahoma, kentucky were total blowouts.

but nevada is an omg...its gone right of the cliff more democratic than minnesota!

[BlueSwan]

Agree with Lunar.

Much of Obamas slight Indiana win came due to the proximity to his home state. The next time Obama is not on the ticket, Indiana is likely to turn republican again.

Nevada is gone, though. I think the same applies to New Hampshire. New England is destined to stay democrat for a long period unless the GOP somehow puts a libertarian candidate on the ticket.

[Lunar]

The GOP *can not* give up on any region as populous as New England and ever hope to capture a congressional majority while the Democrats attempt to compete everywhere else.

For the record, the Democrats have done pretty poorly in the last decade or two when they gave up on the South,..


The fact is that you cannot sustain a winning majority while ignoring a single, highly-populous region of the country, completely.


The GOP *will* crack New England again if they don't become a defunct party (unlikely).  Where are they most likely to do it?  Maine and New Hampshire.  They're trending Democratic at the national level, but obviously the trend has to buck somewhere or otherwise the Dems will win Utah by 2016.

[Lunar]

Might I add that the entire Southwest is becoming part of the Democratic base?

The Colorado Democratic Party is the most successful in Democratic recent history, just amazing fundraising, campaign management, recruitment and advertisement.  Democrats predicted that secular suburban independents were going their way and marketed themselves as such and turned a solidly Republican state into one dominated by Democrats at every level possible within 10 years.

I think it's fair to say the Southwest (CO, NM, NV) will be safe Obama in 2012.  Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico are all part of the Democratic base about as much as North Dakota or Tennessee are part of the Republican base.

Obama's appeal to independents, overall Democratic favorabilities among independents, and the Democratsn newsfound Hispanic margins, means that this region is moving out-of-play quickly.  I sort of suspect that by the time that the GOP can compete effectively in Nevada and New Mexico and Colorado again, that they'll also be able to compete in California.

[BlueSwan]

Let the post-election Obamagasm psychoanalysis commence.  The dreams of Republican domination post-2004 never came to fruition and this won't either.  Things tend to change very, very quickly.  But let's not rain on anyone's parade so early.  It's easy to be a hack, especially two years before the next election.

Oh, I agree, But speculating is FUN!

[Dan the Roman]

I agree generally, except I think that the most likely Republican comeback in New England in 2010 is Maine's first District, rather than either New Hampshire one. Pingree really is not well liked, her daughter has pissed everyone off as Speaker, and had the RNCC played here at all ti might have been a different story this year.

As for New Hampshire there is more in common with Colorado than Vermont. As I mentioned on many of the polling threads when people were talking up McCain's chances here, there is an enormous differential between the Democratic GOTV machine up here and its Republican counterpart. If a Republican is not up at least several points woe to him or her on election day. McCain, and Bradley never really had a chance in the state because of that, even when McCain was polling well. He needed to actually be up 3-4 points consistently rather than down that margin to have the slightest hope of sneaking through.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Rove is smoking crack on Indiana.

Nevada and NH are probably going to remain more democratic than the nation as a whole.  They're not social conservatives, especially Nevada.

But Indiana?!  Even in 2008 it voted more for McCain than the national average by 6 points, even though Obama was from a neighboring state with overlapping media markets and McCain was against Ethanol.

[Sam Spade]

Scary to see me agreeing with Vander Blubb.  Even though I never hedge my bets with asserting that X "will never" happen.

[AngelFromKansas]

Scary to see me agreeing with Vander Blubb.  Even though I never hedge my bets with asserting that X "will never" happen.

how is nevada going to vote republican again with the demographics changing so drastically.

[Brittain33]

Let the post-election Obamagasm psychoanalysis commence.  The dreams of Republican domination post-2004 never came to fruition and this won't either.  Things tend to change very, very quickly.  But let's not rain on anyone's parade so early.  It's easy to be a hack, especially two years before the next election.

Total common sense. We heard in 2004 how various states were "trending" Republican because Bush increased his PV total by 3% and so increased his totals in nearly every state. It was ridiculous and so is any prediction about the future beyond the most partisan states. We have no idea what issues and personalities will be salient in 2016, and can only guess at 2012.

If these comments indicate how Rove thinks, it explains even further why he was such a disaster for the Republican Party. It's just a different method of confusing tactics and strategy.

[Sam Spade]

Scary to see me agreeing with Vander Blubb.  Even though I never hedge my bets with asserting that X "will never" happen.

how is nevada going to vote republican again with the demographics changing so drastically.

Easy.  You nominate someone who appeals to those demographics.  Or the focus of issues changes to where the dominant concerns are those things in which you have agreement with those people.  Or perhaps even, those people are pissed off at those in power for some reason and choose you to represent their interests just because you're not them.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Rove is smoking crack on Indiana.

Nevada and NH are probably going to remain more democratic than the nation as a whole.  They're not social conservatives, especially Nevada.

But Indiana?!  Even in 2008 it voted more for McCain than the national average by 6 points, even though Obama was from a neighboring state with overlapping media markets and McCain was against Ethanol.

I agree. This is the one inarguable case of the Obama ground game overwhelming the Republican tilt of the state. However, the state has been inching Democratic over the last few years, and may, like New Hampshire, finally be beginning to behave like the other states in it's region.

[ucscgaldamez]

I have Latino mexican friends in Colorado and Nevada. I have family members there. John Zogby is talking about changing the discussion of issues to appeal to them, and having people that appeal to them. I don't necessarily buy it at all when I talk to these people who have been voting Democratic and are shaping a re-alignment in Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico. They tend to be socially conservative but many see the Republicans as the party of the rich and racist. My brother who lives in Nevada is very socially conservative, strongly against gay marriage, abortion, etc. and hates the GOP and what "they stand for." He says he would never consider voting for them, even when I bring up the social issues that he agrees with them on. I don't know what it's gonna take for the GOP to appeal to Latino voters who whether they like it or acknowledge it will become the future of the political landscape of Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado. The GOP has a strong anti-immigration base that would not let it moderate (I believe) and will continue to push the social agenda, anti-immigration image that has greatly damaged the GOP. I just don't see how that will change the dynamics of the Latino vote in these states at least in the next 20 years.

Heck, if trends continue, Texas may become a swing state in the next 20 years.

[elcorazon]

NM may be trending just as hard as NV.  Without McCain on the ticket, one imagines AZ will also become a swing state or better for the dems.

The dems will have a solid base in the Northeast, West Coast, plus the midwest and southwest.  Republicans can easily make inroads in many of these areas, but not without changing, especially in the socially conservative views that have become such a key component of their positions.

[ucscgaldamez]

They need to find a way to appeal to Latinos and moderate voters and reverse the trend, and they have to start now. If they do not reverse this trend within the next 10 years, the GOP will see those states become like California. I'm sure it hurt to see the Dems getting 61% in California.

Heck, not even Ronald Reagan could get over 60% in California. Quite stunning.

I think, but not sure, that this may be the largest margin for a presidential candidate in California since 1936!!

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

New Hampshire moved from what, D+2 to D+4?

[TheresNoMoney]

New Hampshire moved from what, D+2 to D+4?

In terms of what? Kerry won the state by 1.5% and Obama won the state by about 10%.

Republicans still have a 4,000 person voter registration advantage in this state, but the majority of independents are left/libertarian-leaning.

[elcorazon]

New Hampshire moved from what, D+2 to D+4?

In terms of what? Kerry won the state by 1.5% and Obama won the state by about 10%.

Republicans still have a 4,000 person voter registration advantage in this state, but the majority of independents are left/libertarian-leaning.

I think he means that Kerry did 2 points better than the nat'l avg in NH (probably was more actually) and Obama did 4 ponts better.  I'd bet they were actually about the same relative to the nation.  no swing at all.

[TheresNoMoney]

I think he means that Kerry did 2 points better than the nat'l avg in NH (probably was more actually) and Obama did 4 ponts better. 

Oh, I gotcha. Yeah, NH was about D+3 in 2004 and D+4 in 2008.

[Kevinstat]

I agree generally, except I think that the most likely Republican comeback in New England in 2010 is Maine's first District, rather than either New Hampshire one. Pingree really is not well liked, her daughter has pissed everyone off as Speaker, and had the RNCC played here at all ti might have been a different story this year.

Have you hung out with any non-Republican politicos in Maine.  Hannah Pingree didn't become Speaker until December 3 of this year (she was House Majority Leader from December 2006 until December 2008; the newly elected Maine Legislature takes office in early December), got along well from what I've heard with the House Minority Leader (why he's still in leadership in spite of the House Republicans going from 73 seats to 54 in the last two elections is beyond me) and wasn't even opposed for reelection this year (then again, former House Speaker John Martin, who is hated throughout much of the state, was unopposed in his return to the House in his district (think: PORK) this year as well).  But I think Hannah Pingree is pretty well-liked.

As for Chellie, she won a 6-candidate Democratic primary this June with 43.92%, getting 54.87% more votes than her nearest opponent (three of her opponents were current or former State Senators and a forth opponent was credible and came in second actually; there was a pediatrician from Winthrop who had served in the Gulf War who was one of those candidates who talk about real world experience who you know is going to finish last, and he didn't disappoint, getting 1.36%).  In the general election, she defeated a pro-choice Republican former State Senator with 54.90%, only 5.61% less (in terms on percentage of the vote) than Barack Obama got in the district and only 4.84% less than Tom Allen, as a four-term incumbent, got against the same former State Senator in 2004.  With the strongest Republican candidates for top-ticket office (besides Senators Snowe and Collins who wouldn't run for the U.S. House) likely focusing on the open 2010 Governor's race, Pingree will likely face a weak opposition.  If she doesn't crack 60.00% of the vote in 2010 I'll be surprised.  Her negatives got fairly high (perhaps very high for a challenger who didn't already hold a top-ticket office) during her 2002 run for the Senate against Collins, but she got a greater percentage of the vote in that election (41.50%) than Tom Allen did against the same opponent in this much more Democratic year (38.58%).

[Josh/Devilman88]

Rove needs to be more worried about NC and VA not NV and IN.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that a Republican wins Indiana in some future election.

[Holmes]

No kidding.

Democrats need to think long term when it comes to states like Indiana and North Carolina(and hope all those darn fake Virginians and North Carolinians  keep arriving ). They should keep trying to get young voters to be solidly Democratic even if it means not winning the states, because Kerry + Southwest is a pretty good cushion at the moment anyway.

EDIT: Actually, looking at exit polling, in North Carolina, Obama won the 18 - 29 vote in the 70%'s, while getting mid 40%'s for other age groups(hardly reaching 50% for 30 - 39). In Indiana, he got 19 - 29 with mid 60%'s and the rest were a little over or under 50%. So yeah, like I said, if Democrats can work on getting these voters to become solid voters, then... the GOP parties there might become stressed out in a decade or so.

Then again, I can say Indiana can become the Democrats' Arkansas and West Virginia? As in, Republicans would vote GOP statewide(governor, senators[save Bayh]...), but vote for Democrats on a presidential level? I'm probably gonna be laughed at for saying it, but I base it off the fact that Marion county went pretty comfortably for Obama AND Daniels...