Robert David Sullivan's thesis is that you need at least five, preferably six out of ten distinct American regions to win a national election:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/bush/articles/2004/11/14/beyond_red_and_blue_again?mod
e=PF
MY thesis is that there are three ways to do it: The LIBERTARIAN strategy, focusing on the "Sagebrush" (western) region; the FARM strategy, focusing on the Farm Belt/Big River regions, and the ZELL MILLER strategy, focusing on Appalachia and the Southern Lowlands.
Today, a look at the LIBERTARIAN strategy, and some "Sagebrush" and "El norte" states: HI, NM, NV, CO, AZ, MT, AK, WY, ID, UT,
While three of our bedrock regions are easy, and intertwined, making sense of EL NORTE is about as easy as pigeonholing the latino demographic itself. Not only is it the newest, most difficult of the ten regions to measure, but almost nowhere is it sufficient to win any state by itself.
Most of El Norte is in CA (where we win easily, in combination with "Upper Coasts" against the inland "sagebrush" 1/3 of the state), in TX (where we lose because the "Redneck Idiots" eastern part of the state outvotes it 3 to 1), and FL (where "Southern Lowlands" is kingmaker between El Norte and Redneck Idiots, and the Cuban vote complicates things even further).
To top it off, Sullivan has for some reason stuck our bedrock state of HAWAII in El Norte, even though the ethnic population is native Hawaiian and Asian, not latino.
Four other states--approximately from Left to Right NEW MEXICO, NEVADA, COLORADO and ARIZONA, have both El Norte and Sagebrush components. In all four, Kerry won the El Norte part of the state, but not by enough to offset even larger Bush margins elsewhere. The good news is that El Norte is taking over, and all four states are expected to be Democratic strongholds by the end of the decade--maybe.
SAGEBRUSH consists of these four states, five states I discussed yesterday in connection with Upper Coasts (CA, WA, ME, OR, NH), a few slivers that marginally influence some of the plains states, and ALASKA, MONTANA, IDAHO, WYOMING, and UTAH, which are all 100% Sagebrush and which have been so Republican in recent years that Kerry didn't even bother this year. The last of these states to go blue was MT in 1992, due largely to a strong Perot vote and a turnout to retain Pat Williams as Congressman the year MT lost its second district and Williams had to campaign statewide for the first time.
In fact, it seems to me that Montana represents the key to winning over Sagebrush, a move that could solidify into deep blue the states it shares with El Norte and Upper Coasts, while making a battleground of the upper Rockies.
Consider Kos's front page report on the "Montana Miracle":
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/15/1245/8469
Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat, not only became the state's Governor, but swept in a Democratic Senate and 4 of 5 statewide offices. If Montana can do it, why not Wyoming? Why not Idaho?
The Libertarian strategy exploits the fact that the Bush Republican Party has overreached itself by aligning inexorably itself with the extreme religious right and pushing a social agenda that steps on individual rights. Unlike the Bible Belt, the Sagebrush region, except for Utah and perhaps Colorado Springs, is not excessively religious and is not fond of the "values" crusade. Political partisans here distrust "big Government", which hurt the Democrats when we WERE the Government. Now that the other guys are the party of "big Government", it can help us.
For many of us, a rallying cry of "GET GOVERNMENT OFF THE BACKS OF THE PEOPLE" ought to help us. Many Sagebrush states have passed one or another form of marijuana legalization, and other socially "permissive" initiatives that make the snoots from the moralist wing cringe.
Sagebrush is the farthest region from the Bush base of the South. If we aren't going to adapt to the Dixie-ization of America, we need to reach out for votes here. Michael Moore has consistently reached out to hunters in Michigan, militia groups in Montana, Terry Nichols in "Bowling for Columbine", many, many angry rural people who feel like the system has let them down and are looking for something to make them feel powerful. Why not embrace them and invite them to join TeamDemocrat?
Rural westerners tend to vote Republican for three main reasons: guns, land use, and taxes, in that order. It isn't "security", since the empty quarter is not on the top 200 terrorist targets in North America. It isn't "God", outside of Utah. It isn't "gays"; although perhaps they'll vote for a gay marriage ban if it's on the ballot, by and large, they think what other households do is their own business. Fred Phelps did not get a welcome reception in Wyoming when he showed up to exploit the Shepard business.
No, to win Sagebrush will involve a lot less compromise than you might think, and certainly less than the soul-selling demanded of Democrats in the Zell Miller South.
It will mean respecting the Second Amendment as much as the rest of the Bill of Rights, which shouldn't be too difficult given the present siege mentality. Do we want the GOP to be the only ones with the guns?
It will mean embracing a new environmentalism that emphasizes hunting and recreational use of the land, instead of 100% preservation.
And it will involve tax breaks for the little guy while playing the corporate fat cats as the bad guy.
If that's a pill you can swallow, consider a Western push for a national majority.
Tomorrow: The Farm Belt.