Well, it's over. This grueling, interminable, marathon of an election is over, and we have just taken the first step in turning our country from a Republican free market experiment into a kinder and more sensible place to live. Only the first step, but it was a doozy.
So I find myself filled with a variety of thoughts, and they're not all happy thoughts (see Prop 8). So instead of writing several thin diaries I thought I would try to collect everything here into one diary, with the randomness of my thoughts as the theme.
And I'm sure a lot of you are experiencing the same thing - you have some observation that you think is worth mentioning but it doesn't quite qualify for a diary. I invite you to mention it here.
So to begin...
Hillary Clinton and John McCain First of all, if you'd asked me last year who I thought would be the toughest people to beat on the national stage, I'd have said Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Hands down. And Barack just beat them back to back. Man deserves a vacation.
The Vietnam War Assuming that from here on out the candidates will be of the slightly younger post-Boomer generation, let me just say what a relief it is that we can FINALLY stop re-fighting the Vietnam War every four years. There is nothing I am sicker of than every election being a referendum on that lost cause, with 2004 being the worst of all. At least give us a little bit of a reprieve before we start re-fighting the Iraq War. ;-)
On a similar note...
Military Experience For all the talk about military experience being a boon to one's political resume, modern presidential candidates who are veterans have a TERRIBLE track record of getting elected. See Clinton over Bush, Clinton over Dole, Bush over Gore, Bush over Kerry, and now Obama over McCain. So next time we're in the primaries and we have, say, a Dean vs. a Kerry, let us decide entirely based upon the merits of the candidates' proposals and the magnetism of their personalities, without thinking a resume is going to help us. I can't think of any reason that it would be a disadvantage, but recent electoral politics tells us the being a veteran is NOT an advantage.
Indiana I think my favorite victory was Obama's Indiana win. This is because a lot of his wins in places like VA, NC, NV, and CO can be attributed to some combination of changing demographics and Hispanics' souring on the GOP, but Indiana has none of of that. Indiana was just a case of Barack looking over from Illinois and saying, "I'm takin ur state!" and then putting an army of foot soldiers to work doing just that. In fact, we won the entire Great Lakes region. If it touches a Great Lake, we won it. Must be something in the...nah, that's too easy.
The Northeast The blue states are getting bluer. Not only did New England kick out its last Republican congressman, but as of right now it appears that Obama won every single county in New England with the exception of sparsely populated Piscataquis County, Maine. Emblematic of this shift is tiny Essex County, Vermont, which in 2004 was Vermont's lone Republican holdout. But this year it shifted 14 points toward the Democrats to land solidly in Obama's column. I guess the words "Yankee" and "Republican" just don't go together anymore in any way, shape, or form.
Double Digit Victories A win is a win, but winning big is always nice. So I'm happy to report that while in 2004 we only scored 8 double digit victories (CA, IL, MD, NY, CT, RI, MA, and VT, but excluding DC) to the Republicans' 22, this year the opposite happened: we snagged 21 double digit victories and they only got 15.
Our double digit states were: HI, CA, NV, OR, WA, NM, MN, WI, IL, MI, MD, DE, PA, NJ, NY, CT, RI, MA, VT, NH, ME. In fact, the entire Northeast from Maryland northward was double digit Obama.
Theirs were: AK, UT, ID, WY, TX, OK, KS, NE, LA, AR, MS, AL, TN, KY, WV. We kept them from double digits in both Dakotas, although much of the Deep South continues to slip away from us.
Proposition 8 And then there's the bad news. I can't add much to all the things that have already been said, except that this has put a serious damper on my celebratory mood. I'm still happy, but my happiness is tinged with the knowledge that a few too many people in what is supposedly one of the most liberal states we have (fairly or unfairly, that's its reputation), were frightened by a dishonest and well-funded ad campaign into turning backwards on human rights even while they moved forward on the presidency.
Look at the numbers Kos put up in his front page post on the subject. You know what jumps out at me? The 30-44 age group voting yes by a 55-45 margin, which is almost identical to the 45-64 age group. These two age groups should NOT be voting the same way on this. But what does the 30-44 crowd have that the Yes on 8 crowd exploited? Young children.
California gays and lesbians sadly and unwittingly were made into the Willie Horton of 2008. (In 2008, California should know better, but in 1988, the whole country should have known better.) This post at Calitics goes into more detail about how the Prop 8 loss mirrored the Dukakis loss - we were lulled into complacency by a 17-point lead over the summer, but then the scare tactics started and we had to play defense all fall. If we can lose this in California, we can lose it anywhere.
So if you live in a state which does not have a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage but which does have a ridiculously low threshold for one (such as 50%), then FIX THAT SHIT NOW!!! Don't let what happened to California happen to you. But I agree with Kos. We need to start attacking this everywhere. Every state that has some kind of ban or hate amendment should have a repeal put on the ballot every two years. Just keep that up until eventually the other side gets the message. They are NOT going to win this, and we are NOT going to give up.
And finally, from the random to the specific...
The Partisan Index I've been crunching some numbers this afternoon to analyze how key states performed relative to the Cook Partisan Voting Index. What, you ask, is the Cook Partisan Voting Index? The partisan index (for short) is a measure of each state's partisan performance relative to the country as a whole. So if the national race were dead even and a certain state voted Republican by three points, it would have a partisan index of R+3 for that year. But few races are dead even, so if a state does have a partisan index of R+3, and the country voted Democratic by five points, you would expect the Democrat to win this state by two points.
Of course, this isn't a perfect measure because it can be thrown off by things like home state advantage and other local issues that influence a race, but it's greatest use is in measuring trends. So I've calculated some data for several key states for the years 2000, 2004, and 2008. The news, outside the Deep South, is for the most part very good.
Keep in mind, the national numbers for these three elections were D+0.5, R+2.5, and D+6, respectively. I rounded everything to the nearest 0.5%. I was able to do all of this using Daily Kos's electoral scoreboard, currently on the front page. Three cheers for that thing!
Let's start with Iowa, a state synonymous with Obama's rise to the presidency. For 2000, 2004, and 2008, its partisan indices were:
Even D+1.5 D+3
This represents a slow and steady trend in our favor. If the race were dead even, we should win Iowa, especially if these trends continue.
The same cannot be said, however, about Missouri, Iowa's neighbor to the south. Its PI is:
R+2.5 R+4.5 R+6
So even though we tied in Missouri, it appears that in the long run the state is slipping away from us, which has been my feeling for some time. Missouri has long been a battle between Northern and Southern influences, and it looks like the South is winning.
Minnesota, Iowa's neighbor to the north, is a curious bird. Its PI goes something like this:
D+1.5 D+5.5 D+4
So although we scored our first really decicive victory in Minnesota this decade, the PI actually slipped 1.5 points from where you would expect it to be. Just noise? A boost from the RNC? Who knows.
I'd also like to point out something that happens a lot in states that had a good chunk of Nader voters in 2000: you will see a bigger jump between 2000 and 2004 than you do between 2004 and 2008, as the Nader voters vote instead for the Democrats.
Wisconsin The PI for the Badger State goes something like this:
Even D+2 D+7
Unlike its neighbor to the west, Wisconsin takes a BIG leap forward in 2008. It didn't have too many Nader voters in 2000, as you can see from the small 2-point jump to 2004, but for much of the fall of 2004 we were afraid we were going to lose it. But this year it went blue in a big way, giving Obama a 13-point victory. More like this, please!
Indiana The real stunner. Here's the PI:
R+16 R+18.5 R+5.5
While it's still on the Republican side of things (meaning if the national race were close, we'd likely lose) this still represents an incredible 13 point swing in our favor, by far the biggest movement by any state. If Obama has a good first term and is able to move these numbers a few more points, Indiana will be a legitimate tossup for any Democrat by 2016. Incredible. This would be like if they stole New Jersey from us. It would hurt. Real bad.
Michigan:
D+4.5 D+5.5 D+10
More great movement. If McCain had fought to the end here, he might have been able to close that gap, but he wouldn't have won it.
Pennsylvania:
D+4.5 D+5.5 D+5
PA lacks the big movement of some other states, but when you consider that McCain threw everything at it, bombarding it with robocalls and Reverend Wright ads, it makes PA's steadfastness all the more impressive. Besides, we won in by 11 points, the first time this decade it hasn't been close. Pennsylvania, I'll never doubt you again. Just don't elect anymore Rick Santorums.
Ohio:
R+3.5 D+0.5 R+2
The first "tipping point" state to be called last night actually shows slight movement towards Republicans, according to the partisan index. Should we read anything into this? We all know what the elephant in the room here is, but if Obama has a good first term and the economy improves, I don't expect to have problems with Ohio in 2012.
Florida:
R+0.5 R+2.5 R+3
Despite the fact that we won it, is Florida slipping away from us? If Obama has a good first term, I expect him to win it again, but this and Missouri are the only two swing states where the long term trends don't look good. Any thoughts?
Virginia:
R+8.5 R+5.5 R+1
North Carolina:
R+12 R+9.5 R+6
Virginia took a terrific leap forward this year, while NC comes along steadily. If the demographic trends in these states continue, they'll both be blue before you know it.
New Hampshire:
R+0.5 D+4 D+5
The big jump in 2004 was the Nader voters coming home. Since then it threw all the Republicans out in 2006, and this year it held steady, at least according to the partisan index. But here the PI only tells part of the story, because this former Republican state was a slaughter. A ten point Obama victory. Keep in mind, New Hampshire has long had a "love affair" with John McCain much in the way Iowa has one with Obama, but Obama won every single county. And they kicked Sununu out on his butt. The Republicans are finished here.
Maine:
D+4.5 D+6.5 D+12
And McCain thought he actually had a shot there! Bwahahahahahahaha!!!!!
And now out west, to Colorado:
R+8 R+2.5 D+1
The Nader voters came home in 2004, and there was more good movement this year. If Obama wins it again in 2012, I think we can call it a blue state. Solid.
New Mexico:
R+0.5 D+1.5 D+9
Another big story from last night is how New Mexico's application into the Blue States of America...HAS been accepted. Wow.
Nevada:
R+3 D+0.5 D+6
Another wow. A 12-point victory in a state Bush won twice. Way to go, Silver State!
Oregon is not all the way in yet, but I expect it to show good movement in our direction. Another swing-state-to-blue-state success story.
And now to the Deep South, where the good news ends. Despite big increases in African American turnout, most of these states continue to slip away from us, and even Georgia isn't exactly leapfrogging in our direction.
Here are the numbers:
Louisiana:
R+7 R+12.5 R+12.5
Mississippi:
R+17 R+16.5 R+19
Alabama:
R+13.5 R+22.5 R+27
Georgia:
R+11.5 R+14.5 R+11
South Carolina:
R+16.5 R+14.5 R+14
Tennessee:
R+4.5 R+11.5 R+21
And it's not in the Deep South, but West Virginia, a state I love, is sadly showing similar numbers:
R+6.5 R+10.5 R+19
A lot of those southern numbers started out badly and have been getting steadily worse. Despite Obama's rhetoric about there being "no red states, no blue states, but only the United States", the conclusion that I come to running these numbers is that the country continues to drift further and further apart. If Obama can truly unite us, then he will be one of our greatest presidents.
But I don't know if it can be done.