Recent...writings...have advocated writing off the South.
So be it. Let's ditch the deadweight -- all of it.
No, really. If you're going to spot the Republicans 130+ seats in Congress, why not go whole hog?
Here's my thinking. In the 2006 electoral climate, with a 50-state Democratic campaign strategy in play, if a given state did not respond to the appeal of Democrats, or lagged significantly behind the rest of the country, then clearly that state should be written off.
I mean, really. If, say, Republicans gained votes in 2006, or only lost a little ground in a situation where Bush has thirtysomething approval ratings, then something's up to no good.
The New York Times, being impeccably blue and in an impeccably blue state, shall be our arbiter of change
At the bottom center of the interactive graphic linked above, you will see a field where you can search for and obtain results by states.
I went ahead and did this; I mean it's that important to find out which states responded to the Blue Wave, and which ones resisted.
We must know, with no doubt, and no compunction, whom to write off.
Nationwide, Democrats gained 12% in popular vote in Congressional House races versus the 2004 election. (The standard deviation on this is about 11%, if you're keeping notes.)
Rule of thumb, let's say if a state improved its Dem vote by 18% or more, it's kickin' butt. Definite keepers, even if building up from a low level. If it's 6% or less? I say they're outta there. Dead weight. A waste of resources and resolve. Time to move along.
State, 2006...........DemChange
Alaska................32% West
South Dakota..........32% Midwest
Kentucky..............29% South
New Hampshire.........29% Northeast
Florida...............27% South
Nebraska..............26% Midwest
Idaho.................24% West
Delaware..............21% Northeast
South Carolina........21% South
Mississippi...........18% South
New York..............18% Northeast
--- Wow! States in every region! And lot's of Southern states! Who knew!
Maryland..............17%
Virginia..............17%
Arizona...............16%
Kansas................16%
Maine.................16%
Alabama...............15%
Nevada................15%
Indiana...............14%
Oklahoma..............14%
Georgia...............13%
Pennsylvania..........13%
Wyoming...............13%
Colorado..............12%
Massachusetts.........12%
Michigan..............12%
Montana...............12%
North Dakota..........12%
Connecticut...........11%
North Carolina........11%
Tennessee.............11%
Iowa..................10%
New Jersey............10%
Illinois..............09%
Texas.................09%
Missouri..............08%
Utah..................08%
California............07%
New Mexico............07%
Oregon................07%
---As for our non-performers....---
Ohio..................06% Midwest
Washington............06% West
Minnesota.............05% Midwest
Rhode Island..........05% Northeast
Hawaii................03% West
West Virginia.........01% Northeast
Wisconsin............-04% Midwest
Louisiana............-05% South
Arkansas.............-11% South
Vermont..............-35% Northeast
Quick tally, Strong versus Weak Performances by Region
South......4 strong, 2 weak (net +2)
Northeast..3 strong, 3 weak (net 0)
West.......2 strong, 2 weak (net 0)
Midwest....2 strong, 3 weak (net -1)
Maybe it's just me, but Democrats bothering to half-ass fund and field candidates in the South generated very promising results. Sure, only five seats this time around, yet imagine what might have transpired if the DCCC had sunk $3 million into Southern races as opposed to suburban Chicago...where a curious absence of Southern white males rejected a perfectly qualified Iraq War veteran.
At the same time, in North Carolina, the same bunch of Southern white males came very close to electing, of all things, a schoolteacher to Congress. I mean, really. Some overeducated intellectual with no good ole boy ties? What's the world coming to?
It's senses. Oh, yeah. That's right. The world is coming to its senses.
Another approach -- Cross-Country Scoring!
In the sport of cross-country, the lowest score wins. A team scores by adding up the finishing places of its top five runners, with the next two runners acting as spoilers. The mathematically perfect score is 15 (1,2,3,4,5 = 15).
So, given the performances above, let's see how our four regional squads fare:
South........ 3, 5, 9, 10, 13 (17, 20)....40
Northeast.... 4, 8, 11, 12, 16 (21, 24)....51
West......... 1, 7, 14, 18, 22 (23, 26)....62
Midwest...... 2, 6, 15, 19, 25 (27, 28)....67
Pretty much the same answer. Granted, the South's not a perennial contender -- yet -- in progressive circles, but I'm liking what I'm seeing in terms of the change in the demographics, all thanks to the 50-state strategy.
Now imagine what sufficient funding would do to bring some candidates home, building on those much-improved demographics.
Wrap
Maybe, just maybe, the Democratic and progressive leadership should pick up the pace a bit and lead where the American people -- white Southern males, too! -- are wanting to go.
James Carville was in part correct -- we could have done better; he just pointed the finger at the wrong man. He should have been calling for Rahm Emanuel's head, not that of Howard Dean.
Well...you can get killed in wars pointing your gun at the wrong target, so one supposes Carville got off easy.
That aside: It's time to get the 21st Century up and running, and the place for the Third Millennium appears is with front-line progressives doing right by America and their fellow Democrats.
And you all sure are welcome to come along for the ride, now. :)
Update: Normalizing for Diminishing Returns
Some states are already very Blue (in a happy not sadly conservative way) so a gain of 1% actually means something more in, oh, Rhode Island than it does in, say, Utah.
Props to JohhnyGunn for suggesting that I take this into account.
Below, I take:
- The changes in Dem voter percentage above
- Divide them by the percentage of Bush voters in the 2004 election (to normalize for "room to grow" Dem votes).
- Rank-order these ratios.
- Repeat the regional comparisons from above
They look like this:
State, 2006...........DemChange/'04BushVote
New Hampshire.........59% Northeast
South Dakota..........53% Midwest
Florida...............50% South
Alaska................50% West
Kentucky..............48% South
Delaware..............44% Northeast
New York..............43% Northeast
Nebraska..............38% Midwest
Maryland..............38% South
South Carolina........35% South
Maine.................35% Northeast
Idaho.................35% West
---Above here, did especially well ---
Massachusetts.........31% Northeast
Virginia..............30% South
Mississippi...........29% South
Nevada................28% West
Arizona...............28% West
Pennsylvania..........26% Northeast
Kansas................25% Midwest
Michigan..............24% Midwest
Connecticut...........24% Northeast
Alabama...............23% South
Indiana...............23% Midwest
Colorado..............23% West
Georgia...............22% South
New Jersey............21% Northeast
Oklahoma..............21% South
Montana...............20% West
Iowa..................20% Midwest
Illinois..............19% Midwest
North Carolina........19% South
Tennessee.............19% South
North Dakota..........19% Midwest
Wyoming...............18% West
California............15% West
Missouri..............15% Midwest
Oregon................14% West
Texas.................14% South
New Mexico............14% West
Washington............13% West
Rhode Island..........12% Northeast
Ohio..................12% Midwest
Utah..................11% West
Minnesota.............10% Midwest
---Below, did especially badly---
Hawaii................07% West
West Virginia.........02% Northeast
Wisconsin............-08% Midwest
Louisiana............-08% South
Arkansas.............-20% South
Vermont..............-89% Northeast
Net of Strong versus Weak Performances, By Region
Northeast...4 strong, 2 weak.....(+2)
South.......4 strong, 2 weak.....(+2)
Midwest.....2 strong, 1 weak.....(+1)
West........2 strong, 1 weak.....(+1)
Regions by "Cross Country Scoring" -- Lowest "wins"
Northeast... 1, 6, 7, 11, 13 (18, 21)...38
South....... 3, 5, 9, 10, 14 (15, 22)...41
Midwest..... 2, 8, 19, 20, 23 (26, 27)...72
West........ 4, 12, 16, 17, 24 (25, 28)...73
Okay...that normalizes nicely, reflecting both pre-existing strength as well as specific performances.
So, the Northeast holds reign...barely.
Thoughts on the Update
CW has it that New Hampshire was the Royal Flush of Dem performances this year, with the South Dakota smackdown of the abortion amendment and a certain competitive candidate out in Nebraska that had a lot of Kossacks swooning.
All three are toward the top of this newer list.
As for the reigonal comparisons, this supports the CW that the Northeast is the Blue heartland and that while just below radar in regards to garnering House seats, voters are shifting in significant numbers toward something the South has not seen in its existence, ever -- a true two-party system.
We'll get you those extra seats, America. We almost had you another half-dozen; we'll bag 'em next time out.