Skip to main content

I went to one of my favorite sites, 270towin.com, and looked at the elections from 1988 to 2012 to see what the battleground map looks like historically.  Follow me to orange infinity and beyond!

I am a map reader.  I love going to 270towin just to scroll through the maps and see the trends over the years.  New York used to be quite the swing state, don't cha know?  One day when I was perusing the maps, I noticed the seeds of our current map being planted in 1988.  The 84 election was virtually a shutout for Reagan and the elections before that were from the era before the solid Republican South.  1988 was the year Iowa, Oregon, and Washington in particular, which had been consistently Republican, switched to reliably Democratic (aside from IA in 04).  The only Dukakis state which has not become a part of our coalition is West Virginia.  While Clinton won WV both times, we have not won the state in any of the last four elections.  Clinton's victories in the south were the last gasp of that previous era combined with a spoiler factor, but in the rest of the country he was able to consolidate and expand on Dukakis' kernels of strength, leaving us essentially with the map we have today.

With Clinton's unusual circumstances in mind, I looked at the four elections since he left office to see what state are actually "swinging".  Its a short list.  And it looks really good for us.

In all, 40 states and the District of Columbia have voted for the same party in each election from 2000-2012, 18 states plus DC for the Democrat, 22 states for the Republican.  More importantly, our states have 242 electoral votes to their 180.  With that map, all we need to do is win Florida and its over.  

Five states have gone for one party three of the last four elections.  New Mexico, Iowa, and New Hampshire for us, Indiana and North Carolina for them.  Clinton won the three Democratic leaning states both times and lost the Republican leaning states both times, so I will put them in their respective categories.  That gives us 257 to 206 with the Democrat in the lead.

That leaves Nevada, Colorado, Florida, Ohio, and Virginia which have split their votes in the last four elections.  These are all states that Gore and Kerry lost and Obama won both times.  Nevada was not really considered a swing state last cycle, but the rest I think will be competitive next cycle.

What strikes me is the way our strength has expanded and consolidated on those Dukakis states.  We have been playing offense from the base he established in 1988.  First we turned his toeholds in the Northeast, upper Midwest, and West Coast into regional dominance, then made forays first into the Mountain West then the upper South that seem to be gaining traction.  Where we go from here is anyone's guess.  If Republicans can cut the margins with Latinos, just to use an obvious example, we will have some trouble.  Unforeseen events can change the landscape.  But based on the trends I'm optimistic.

Originally posted to slothlax on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 01:42 AM PST.

Also republished by Community Spotlight.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I thought you meant he was the leader... (26+ / 0-)

    ...among 2016 candidates. So I'm relieved.

    You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

    by Rich in PA on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 03:46:30 AM PST

    •  Ditto. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      slothlax, psnyder, bontemps2012

      The last news I had heard about Dukakis was that my friend got double-parked by his limo in Boston. Otherwise? Not much. So he seemed to be keeping kind of a low profile for a 2016 candidate.

      Nothing requires a greater effort of thought than arguments to justify the rule of non-thought. -- Milan Kundera

      by Dale on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 08:38:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Miii III (0+ / 0-)

        in roman numerals

        What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

        by agnostic on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 12:36:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Saw him at the fair (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lujane, bontemps2012, Dale

        Saw him at the fair on Martha's Vineyard last summer.  Wasn't sure at first, until I saw the eyebrows--only one guy in the world with eyebrows like that.  He and Kitty seemed to be getting around pretty well, didn't get close enough to say hi.

        •  Two memories (4+ / 0-)

          of Dukakis:
          1.  When I was in law school I walked from my dumpy apartment to the State Street T station, a path that took me through the Mass state house.  I passed him more then a few times as he walked from the T to the State House - and it happened enough he started saying hi.
          2.  In 1996 I was at a party at the Democratic National Convention and he stood off to the side of the party - and he was kind of being ignored.  Losers are discarded very quickly in politics.  It was like those in attendance thought the nominee of the party just 8 years before had some kind of disease they didn't want to catch.

          More seriously, let's look at the states that were Dukakis lost by less than 5:

              Illinois, 2.09%
              Pennsylvania, 2.31%
              Maryland, 2.91%
              Vermont, 3.52%
              California, 3.57%
              Missouri, 3.98%
              West Virginia, 4.74%
              New Mexico, 4.96%

          It is interesting to look at how big some of the shifts are here even when compared to 2000.  12 years later Illinois, Vermont and California would be safely Democratic.

          Another interesting point: there were more states decided by 5 or less in 1988 (where Bush won by 7) than there were in 2012 - a much close election.

          The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

          by fladem on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 07:08:48 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Um ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      volleyboy1

      He'd be 83 on election day, 2016 (give or take a few days, his birthday is Niovember 5, 1933).  I don't think you have to worry about him running.

      "Valerie, why am I getting all these emails calling me a classless boor?"

      by TLS66 on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 09:27:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Pssst: (6+ / 0-)
    Clinton's victories in the south were the last gasp of a that previous era combined with a spoiler factor...
    Clinton was also from the south.

    "Every now & then your brain gifts you with the thought, 'oh, that's right, I don't actually give a **** about this.' Treasure it" -- jbou

    by kenlac on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 04:51:20 AM PST

    •  So was Gore. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wishingwell, Dvalkure, SilentBrook, kenlac

      It was a Southern ticket, basically.

      Probably won't happen again for either side -- Dems know they can't win the South and Repubs don't have to try very hard to win it.

      "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

      by Bush Bites on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 05:30:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Define "the south" because VA and NC.... (9+ / 0-)

        and FL are all very attainable and attractive electorally and GA is tightening up nicely. With the right candidate, that sucker is up for grabs no later than 2020.

        Sure, we've probably lost TN, Arky, and LA, but that's a small price to pay to not have to be forced to run some centrist blue dog.

      •  "The South" has two parts: (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        slothlax, filby, hazzcon, JVolvo, Lujane

        The Atlantic South - Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida - is a swing district.  The Democrats have a good chance of winning at least some of this region.

        The Interior South - Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas - is the most solidly-Republican region of the entire country.

        This division is a fairly recent phenomenon.  Just a few years ago, South Carolina was among the most Republican states in the country, while Arkansas and Louisiana were swing states.  In 2012, Obama got a higher % in South Carolina than in any Interior South state, including those that Clinton had won.

        Art is the handmaid of human good.

        by joe from Lowell on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 09:54:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  VA, NC and FL are southern states (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lujane, bontemps2012

        obama won all three in 2008, and came close to winning NC again in 2012. unless you buy biden's "delaware is sorta southern, because we were a slave state" shtick, there weren't any northerners on the ticket.

        •  I know, they are included (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wu ming, bontemps2012

          Those states are the forays I talk about in the last paragraph.  The Dukakis map didn't have a single "southern" state (unless you count WV) and pointed the way to a winning strategy without the south.  Once we locked down the regions he won, we started creeping into VA, NC, FL and also CO, NM, and NV

          There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

          by slothlax on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 11:09:58 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Florida is kind of a southern state (0+ / 0-)

          but there are large portions than really have nothing in common with the rest of the south.  Once you get below I-10 the southern accent almost vanishes.

          The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

          by fladem on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 07:10:33 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Reminds me of the folly (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        slothlax, bontemps2012

        Of the republican Northern ticket this time around. MA and WI standard bearers for the GOP?

      •  Good point. (0+ / 0-)

        "Every now & then your brain gifts you with the thought, 'oh, that's right, I don't actually give a **** about this.' Treasure it" -- jbou

        by kenlac on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 01:09:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Your analysis does not mention WV (13+ / 0-)

    Duke won West Virginia.  Gore did not.  Kerry did not.  Obama did not win it either time.  Clinton was the last Dem to win WV which he did twice.  We need to understand why.  A lot has to do with the change in labor union allegiances, and as that is specific to coal mining.  But whatever the case your analysis should include something separate on WV.  It is incomplete without it.

    There are very few subjects which do not interest or fascinate me.

    by NYFM on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 05:03:35 AM PST

    •  Let me help you out.... (13+ / 0-)

      Guns and coal, coal and guns. And a conservative values system that opposes gay marriage, etc.

      Did I mention coal? And guns? And so-called family values?

      Joe Manchin wins because he's a gun-toting son of a dead coal miner (his dad was among those who died in a horrific mine disaster) with populist values.

      The Democrats are not going to nominate Joe Manchin or Earl Ray Tomblin (the governor) for national office, and whoever gets the nomination will probably be too liberal for the Mountaineer state.

      •  But "soft on crime" Dukakis won WV (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SilentBrook, David PA

        why?  Was it because the Brady bill had not yet seen the light of day?  Were unions more influential?  What were the salient factors that changed WV in just twelve years?

        There are very few subjects which do not interest or fascinate me.

        by NYFM on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 06:23:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Demographics, too (6+ / 0-)

        One of the biggest divides in presidential support over the last two elections was age. West Virginia's population is increasingly older and less educated. This is largely due to a poor economy--young people either leave to get an education or leave after receiving an education. Since the state is 95% white and losing all of the young educated people it turns out, what demographic is left to vote for Obama?

        So if you want to explain West Virginia, you need to understand why white working class voters in WV have started to look more like they are in the states to the south rather than places like OH, PA and WI. And actually, even if they looked more like the ones in PA, Obama still would have lost because there are no sizable minority populations to overcome the gap that still exists, albeit smaller in those other states.

        Oh, and no city is larger than 55,000 or so people. So there is no "urban vote" which has been trending more heavily Democratic either.

        "What is essential is invisible to the eye." www.thefoxfoot.com

        by greywolfe359 on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 09:46:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thank you (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          slothlax

          Normally the specific demographics of a particular electorate, and the specific issues in a particular election (ballot issues, downticket candidates) are what determines a vote outcome.  Too many analyses draw inaccurate conclusions due to incomplete analysis.  I suspect a similar dynamic helped Dukakis win Iowa by a comfortable 10%, while Bush pulled out a win in adjacent and more urban Illinois!

          There are very few subjects which do not interest or fascinate me.

          by NYFM on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 10:12:19 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  WV and Appalachia (6+ / 0-)

          Note how the areas adjacent to WV in other states have behaved in a somewhat similar fashion - SW PA, the MD Panhandle, SW VA, KY coal country, SE OH.

          You wouldn't necessarily notice this looking at state-to-state numbers, since those states to one extent or another all have countervailing things going on elsewhere - but going by county you would. The pattern breaks up as you get approach the nearest large urban areas - DC, Columbus, and Pittsburgh.

          On the 1988 Dukakis/Bush map, the entire SW quadrant of PA is blue.  In 2012 it was a sea of red except for Allegheny County.

          West Virginia is pretty much one solid bloc of voters, moreso than perhaps any other state anywhere is.  

          Stuck Between Stations : Thoughts from a bottomless pool of useless information.

          by Answer Guy on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 11:55:25 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The Mississipi River has a similar dynamic (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            NYFM

            I remember looking at a map of the 2000 and 2004 election results that broke down results by county.  The counties along the Mississippi River, no matter the state, were pretty solidly blue.  The further east or west you went, depending on the state, the redder it got.  I was looking at IA in particular because it was close in both elections and one of the few to swing, but when I noticed the dynamic there I checked other states and it was pretty uniform.

            There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

            by slothlax on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 12:01:30 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Here's a NY Times map (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            slothlax, JVolvo

            That I find fascinating. Here's the link: 2008 election -- ignore the map that comes up (it's just the red and blue states).

            But over on the left (underneath the 365 for Obama), click on "voting shifts."

            That map shows the shifts county by county from 2004 to 2008. Bush won in 2004 and Obama won in 2008, so most of the country shows a blue shift (because Obama won by picking up votes all over the country), but here and there are red counties that became more Republican from 2004 to 2008.

            Look closely at Appalachia (from WV to the VA/KY border, the NC/TN border, down to northern AL). That's where the Republicans got stronger. There's also a strip of red that runs from TN to AR and OK. Arizona was also more Republican, but that's probably because McCain was from there.

            “If you misspell some words, it’s not plagiarism.” – Some Writer

            by Dbug on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 08:25:53 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The 2012 trends map sucks (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Dbug

              The arrows are confusing to me.  But it shows red gains almost everywhere except the Deep South, up the Atlantic Coast, and around the Cleveland area

              There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

              by slothlax on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 09:02:41 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  No, Joe's uncle (his mom's brother) was killed in (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        slothlax, David PA

        the 1968 #9 explosion.  His father (John) and immigrant grandfather (Papa Joe) were businessmen in Farmington and both lived to ripe old ages, free of any association with the digging of coal.  Though Papa is also said to have been a "union organizer," I'm not sure what he ever actually did in that regard.  He owned a grocery store, which later expanded into a furniture and carpet business, though the family operation is now centered on a medical clinic.

    •  Same deal with Kentucky, too (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wishingwell

      Though, Kentucky still has at least one part of the state that will elect liberal Democrats, unlike West Virginia.

    •  I wrote about this a couple years ago (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      slothlax, JVolvo

      It's a fairly lengthy diary, but it can sort of be summed up as:

      I've got four words for you: coal, education, age and race.

      What's The Matter With West Virginia?

      "What is essential is invisible to the eye." www.thefoxfoot.com

      by greywolfe359 on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 09:42:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  As Rick Perry once said... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JVolvo, David PA

      Oops.  I did mention WV when I first started writing, but I lost it in the rewrite.  Thanks for pointing it out.

      There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

      by slothlax on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 10:58:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I added a line (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JVolvo

      I'm not really looking at the why in this diary, just the what.  But that is the only what I overlooked, thanks

      There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

      by slothlax on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 11:07:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  A lot of "conservative" states can be chipped away (6+ / 0-)

    depending on what kinds of conservatives inhabit that state. For example, among the Libertarian types, we can play up the social-libertarian angles for temporary boosts. Whereas among Talibangelical types we probably will never make any significant inroads.

    A lot also depends on which route the GOP takes in the next few years-- more extremism? In that case, they will do our job for us and erode support from among their own disaffected supporters. A lot of those won't join us, but they will either tune out of elections entirely or support third-parties.

    But if the GOP has an actual Road to Damascus moment and cleans up its act and put the Teabaggers and Jeezus Fringe element back in the basement, then they will go back to being a serious party that is an actual challenge.

    •  In other words (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SilentBrook, slothlax

      forget the Deep South (GA, AL, MS, AR, LA) and focus on the Rocky Mountain states, perhaps save Utah. Even WY can be focused on (fun fact: Kerry actually won Cheney's home county in WY .. Teton).

      "Valerie, why am I getting all these emails calling me a classless boor?"

      by TLS66 on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 06:38:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Georgia has similar trends.... (8+ / 0-)

        ....to North Carolina and Virginia in that it has a lot of non-southern whites moving there. It's not enough to tip the state to the Democrats, but Obama did do fairly well, on the basis of liberal-to-moderate whites, a growing Latino population, and a large black population.

        •  Yes as Atlanta and its suburbs grow and there (5+ / 0-)

          are more transplants from the northeast and other regions moving there following college for jobs. the area becomes more and more diverse. And there are some blue counties and districts in Atlanta and in the suburbs. My sister lives in a very blue suburb northeast of Atlanta. As this regions grows ....I think Atlanta can gradually turn the state blue . But it is has to increase in size to overcome the south and central regions of GA which are deep red.

          Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

          by wishingwell on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 08:07:23 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  not just northern whites (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          slothlax

          there are a significant number of northern and west coast blacks moving to states like GA and NC.

      •  "Deep South" is an obsolete concept. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        slothlax, wildweasels, quetzal, TLS66

        Once upon a time, the South could be divided into the Deep South and the Upper South, with the latter being more progressive than the former.  For instance, the two Senators from Tennessee, then an Upper South state, did not sing onto the anti-civil rights Southern Manifesto.

        That old division has gone away.  Now, it's all about the Atlantic South vs. the Interior South.  The states that have a coast on the Atlantic are much less red than those that do not.  Virginia and Florida are pretty dependable blue states, while Tennessee might as well be Alabama when it comes to national politics.  South Carolina used to be one of the most Republican states in the country.  In 2012, Obama scored a higher % of the vote there than in any Interior South state.

        Art is the handmaid of human good.

        by joe from Lowell on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 10:00:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  No. Don't write off any state. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        slothlax

        I know it's frustrating, but we have to take this fight to their heartland. Even in the reddest state there are some Dems. And where you have an influx like Georgia and Texas, making a presence, showing the colors, is crucial to eventually flipping these states.
        I don't remember if it was Howard Dean that said after the most recent election that what we need is a "10000 precinct strategy", a finer grain version of his 50 state strategy.
        The phrase that I hear is Full Court Press.
        A lot of local officials run unopposed. That should never be. Even a symbolic run is better than leaving these pr!cks unopposed. For one thing it forces the GOP to spend money on every race. Even someone who registers as a candidate in one of these races and does nothing else, spends no money, does no campaigning, still draws energy away from the GOP.
        It also encourages the (sometimes vanishingly small) Democratic minority, energizes the local Ds, gives them a rally point. And with the changing demographics and the escalating crazy on the GOP side, it could turn out to be a real surprise.
        And if the Dems can increase their presence enough in the local elections, we may be in a position to fix the Gerrymanders, hence, fix the national problem.
        I hear from Texans that their state is a few cycles away from going blue! I've heard the same from Georgians. North Carolina is on the knife edge. A concerted effort by local Dems backed by a comprehensive national campaign could be the stimulus needed to flip.
        A place like Arizona, that has gone full tilt crazy is also a target worth aiming at in the long run. I can't imagine that the GOP madness is 100% in that state. And I know, it takes 50% +1, but with 30% + a sustained media campaign, it could serve to sober up the swing voters, the less committed, the ones that still have a conscience and a shred of sanity.
        So don't cede any ground!

        If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

        by CwV on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 01:42:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes yes yes (0+ / 0-)

          We are not the party of rigid ideology, I am fully open to all Blue Dog conservadems who can win seats in "red" areas, from dog catcher to Senate.  Not to say that liberals shouldn't run, but anyone on the ballot is better than no one.

          While that infrastructure is building, I think we should have Democrats run in every House race in 2014.  Pro-gun, anti-choice, anti-gay, corporate apologist, whatever.  The only issue I care about in a Congressional candidate in a red district is whether they will vote for a Speaker Pelosi.

          There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

          by slothlax on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 04:46:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  gold dog: If the Republicans fall off their horse, (0+ / 0-)

      they're still in big trouble, because the teabaggers and jesus's people are such a big part of the GOP now. If they take only sane people, they'll be even worse off.

      I think.................

      Those who quote Santayana are condemned to repeat him. Me

      by Mark B on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 09:22:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  They are in trouble (0+ / 0-)

        Their base has shown a willingness to support insurgent, outsider, or even third party candidates (Perot, Tea Party).  They think Republican candidate since Reagan is a hated moderate and they aren't too sure about the Gipper's ideas either, they just like his style.  If the base feels marginalized, they will revolt.  If they are not marginalized, we keep winning national elections and toss up Senate seats.  Lose lose

        There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

        by slothlax on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 11:19:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  The Democrats are destined to become the natural (5+ / 0-)

    governing party.

    The Repukes will never, ever win the Presidency again.

    I think it is wonderful :)

    •  The GOP will win the presidency again (7+ / 0-)

      A win next time out is possible, depending upon a lot of things. Yes, demographics are working against them but this won't mean their extinction. It means they won't be favored to win and will only be able to do so under the right circumstances.

      •  Yes it all depends on their candidate, if they (3+ / 0-)

        are smart, they would nominate someone like Christie who has been known to appeal to moderates and independents but also is quite conservative.  

        But Republicans say Christie is too liberal and Christie speaks out against the baggers and the Republicans too.

        But yes, GOP will win the White House again...depends on the candidate. I can see Rubio or Christie winning next time, perhaps...

        Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

        by wishingwell on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 08:09:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not just the candidate (5+ / 0-)

          Republicans will change. Count on it. Theirs is a losing coalition and losing strategy and the drive to win will force them to change to a more competitive coalition. I don't know what that will be or how long it will take them (or how bloody it will be) but I do know it will happen.
           

          "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

          by Andrew C White on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 09:04:04 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  "or how long it will take them" (0+ / 0-)

            That's the key. If they continue as is for 3 or 4 more cycles, they are done. And so far, it looks like they learned nothing from Obama's double play.
            They'd have to wise up quick to get in in 2016 and so far, it doesn't look like that's happening.
            If they are to survive as a party at all, they will have to change radically, but with their demographic Vs the changing demographics of the nation, they're screwed. They have ghettoized themselves into the old white upper middle class party and that's not a growing field.

            If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

            by CwV on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 01:50:34 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  They will never disappear (0+ / 0-)

              No matter how long it takes, there will still be a rump in the House, Governors, and plenty of legislatures filled with Republicans.  And, given enough time in power, the Democrats will succumb to complacency, scandal, and corruption.

              There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

              by slothlax on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 04:51:23 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not disappear, no. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                slothlax

                But I'd be very surprised if the GOP can hold together at anywhere near 50% of the voters by 2020. More likely the party will split into several parties, the big tent ripping apart (I believe that we are already seeing that happening. The last two Presidential candidates have been the one they settled on, that they all hated least, as Jon Stewart put it, they choose their candidates by erosion).
                And you're right that "given enough time in power, the Democrats will succumb to complacency, scandal, and corruption" and will eventually break up the same way.
                Out of the rubble of both major parties, several new parties will form. By 2050, the political landscape will be completely unrecognizable.
                That is, if there is a political landscape. We may all be in survival mode in isolated, scattered bands of hunter/gatherers by then.

                If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

                by CwV on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 07:21:02 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Nah (0+ / 0-)

                  I respectfully disagree.  The two parties have a duopoly on the mechanisms of elections and have always managed to be in a weird balance that I don't think will be broken.  There will be a Republican in the next cycle or two who can hide the crazy.  The desire to win will trump ideology.

                  But your thing would be fun too.  I lived in England for a year, I enjoyed following politics in a three and a quarter nation queendom (shouldn't we call it that?) with three major parties plus a smattering of nationalist and fringe parties in Parliament.  I've always wanted to see more credible parties here.  I imagine there will only be two or three parties that could compete for the presidency, but a bunch of stuff going on in the House.

                  There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

                  by slothlax on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 08:07:05 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

    •  I'm sure a lot of Republicans said... (3+ / 0-)

      the same thing after George H.W. Bush became president in 1989.

      A lot can happen in four years.

      What if the GOP in 2016 puts up someone such as Marco Rubio, and we put up a dud?

      How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

      by BenderRodriguez on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 09:08:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  you'll regret those words, P. remember: (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joe from Lowell, schumann

      plus ca change, plus a meme chose

      Those who quote Santayana are condemned to repeat him. Me

      by Mark B on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 09:27:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes they will. They'll evolve. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      slothlax

      In a two-party system, there is a force that constantly pushes the two parties into a rough equilibrium.  If things get too out of balance, the majority party starts to trend towards extreme positions, while the minority party reforms itself and starts attracting some of the majority party's voters.

      Art is the handmaid of human good.

      by joe from Lowell on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 10:03:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Speaking of Florida (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, bill warnick

    when will FL Dems introduce articles of impeachment against Rick Scott for overtly interfering in access to the polls on election day to benefit Romney?

    In Roviet Union, money spends YOU.

    by Troubadour on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:25:23 AM PST

    •  Aren't they saddled with a GOP assembly? (0+ / 0-)

      An impeachment would have to get GOP support, no?
      Might be better to take it through the courts, sue him under the Voting Rights Act.

      If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

      by CwV on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 01:54:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Republican support won't pick up (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RamblinDave, wu ming, quetzal

    among Latinos. I'm no statistician, sociologist, or pundit, but I'm comfortable making this prediction. The GOP message, at its core, has been about nativism and white privilege. They can't turn on a dime.

    You can mark my words.

    It's here they got the range/ and the machinery for change/ and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. --Leonard Cohen

    by karmsy on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:47:35 AM PST

    •  Not only that (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      karmsy, Dr Swig Mcjigger, slothlax

      But even if they did take steps to attract more minorities, that would cost them among racist whites. The racist whites won't flip to the Democrats, of course, but their absence will still hurt the Republicans.

      Certaines personnes disent qu'il y a une femme à blâmer, Mais je sais que c'est ma faute sacrément.

      by RamblinDave on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:55:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No matter how much money you have, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RamblinDave, quetzal

        no matter how good your connections are, if you're a big, ungainly beast, you can't maneuver to save your life.

        It's here they got the range/ and the machinery for change/ and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. --Leonard Cohen

        by karmsy on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:57:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  At least, not for a long time. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      karmsy, slothlax, quetzal

      Even if the Republicans do start to make the effort, it will take a few years before the part as a whole washes off the racist stink.  By that time, an entire generation of Latinos will have been locked in a lifelong Democrats.

      Art is the handmaid of human good.

      by joe from Lowell on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 10:05:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Might not happen this cycle (0+ / 0-)

      But there are plenty of Italian and Irish American Republicans.  That same evolution will happen with the various Latino communities, whether the nativists like it or not.

      I've always been uncomfortable with the idea that Latinos are a separate "race".  I mean, race is a social construct anyway, but I've always seen Latinos the way I see Southern and Eastern European immigrants from the turn of the last century.  Common language has made it easier to lump all Latinos together, but in a generation or two I see "Latino" becoming just another ethnic category, more based on country of origin than "Latiness".

      There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

      by slothlax on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 11:31:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well I am a Sociologist and a Statistician :-) (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      slothlax

      and I agree with you to an extent. The question will be where can the Republicans chip off the base? I could see white gay men slowly trickling toward the Republicans in places like New York, California, etc...not enough to shift an election, but could be. I could also see more affluent Hispanics, especially our gains in the Cuban community in Florida, shifting to the right. Puerto Ricans are another group that could potentially swing. Remember, Hispanics are not a monolithic group, and the Puerto Ricans and Cubans that live in Florida are not the same as the Central and South Americans that live in the West. Issues like immigration may not hold as much sway with the Florida Hispanic population. I'd have to look up the General Social Survey data on it, but it wouldn't shock me.

      Born in TN-05 and Live in TN-05, Went to college in TN-09 and TN-06, Married in IA-02.

      by zakandsantos on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 07:04:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I am a Geography Lover Also (4+ / 0-)

    I was just thinking the other night about how the presidential geography has changed. One thing I found interesting is how the Northeast has changed.  Prior to 1992, the ONLY election where Vermont did not vote Republican was the 1964 Johnson landslide.  Vermont and Maine were two states that never voted for FDR.  Since 1992, both Maine and Vermont have become reliably blue states.

    •  That's why I love 270towin (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Charger72

      You can scroll through the years and see the trends.  VT is the only state in the union that never voted for a Democrat until 1964 (except AK, which voted for Nixon in its first election in 1960).  It even went to Taft in 1912.

      There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

      by slothlax on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 11:43:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm not sure Dukakis himself had much (5+ / 0-)

    to do with it but yes, you document fairly well the realignment that occurred starting with civil rights under Johnson, Nixon's southern strategy, the rise of the evangelical Christians under Reagan and the beginnings of the new map in the Bush-Dukakis race.

    Clinton/Gore being southerners made a temporary delay in the complete change over of the map. But if Clinton/Gore ran today we'd still lose Arkansas and Tennessee as evidenced by Gores inability to win them against Bush in 2000. The realignment has completed.

    And the realignment is ultimately favorable to Democrats though it was for a couple decades helpful to Republicans by eliminating the solid south for Democrats and locking it in for Republicans. But it has run its course and the Republicans need to find another way to maintain electoral relevance.

    What is happening now is two things. The growth of minorities, particularly Hispanics, and their strong alignment with Democrats. Republicans really need to adjust to this new reality and become competitive there.

    Also, the extremism of the Republicans is turning off moderate whites as well and without them Republicans are completely doomed. And so you see Democrats becoming competitive in border southern states such as Virginia, North Carolina, perhaps Georgia as these states begin to resemble other Atlantic coast states more then confederate southern states.

    This is also having a major effect in the mountain west starting with New Mexico and now Nevada and Colorado. It seems highly likely we'll see that effect spread into places like Arizona, Montana and the Dakotas unless the Republicans change.

    And they will.

    Losing will force them to change. I'm not sure what that will look like but they will change and there will be a new opposition coalition of some sort. How long that change will take is also unclear as the extremist wing of the Republicans are very strong and becoming well entrenched.

    It'll be interesting to watch.

    "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

    by Andrew C White on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 08:48:04 AM PST

    •  Yes, Dukakis was not the reason (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Andrew C White

      I am not trying to say the Dukakis had anything to do with it really, just that his results are the beginning of what I see as our current electoral era.  The Clinton elections were an aberration of sorts due to his southern appeal and the Perot factor.  88 was the year where the regional realignment was readily visible.

      There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

      by slothlax on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 11:52:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  California followed ... (5+ / 0-)

    CA had the same shift you note for WA, OR, and IA, though 4 years later (1992 instead of 1988).
    It's interesting that the three West Coast States went from being reliably Republican at the presidential level to being reliably Democratic, without ever being Swing States in the interim.
    It will be interesting to see if Texas (and perhaps AZ) do the same at some point in the future.

  •  TEXAS (7+ / 0-)

    I was surprised to recently learn that Texas is already a majority-minority state.  I think we need to get serious about registering voters there and really getting to understand the needs of the huge population of blacks and hispanics who aren't voting--as well as working class whites who vote against their economic interests.  Let's face it: flipping Texas will be the final stake through the heart of the Republican Party...

    "If you can't lower heaven, raise hell!" - Mother Jones

    by al ajnabee on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 09:13:32 AM PST

    •  I'm in total agreement with this. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      v2aggie2, al ajnabee, quetzal, grrr

      Texas is closer than we think to flipping.  I think nurture (organization) rather than nature (demographics) is the primary roadblock at this point.

      Julian Castro's keynote told me elements of the party understand this.

      "And now we know that government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob." -- FDR

      by Mogolori on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 12:27:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Nevada will not vote Republican again in my (0+ / 0-)

    lifetime, imho.

  •  Well... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slothlax, NYFM

    Dukakis was my first ever campaign as a volunteer...met the guy twice...and he was brilliant.  Spoke three languages, knew what it was like to be born to immigrants, Eagle scout. Harvard law, policy wonk, and a great speaker. Everything you want in a President.

    His campaign staff really let him down.  Total mismanagement and infighting.  Susan Estrich was terrible and was completely out of her league.  There's a reason she works for NewsMax and Fox News now.

    The US was just not ready for him, and he didn't have a campaign staff worthy of him.  Clinton learned the lessons of Dukakis, they clearly studied the "what went wrong", to his credit.  But Dukakis was a fantastic man.  I only wish he wasn't so tarnished by the media post mortem.

    •  IIRC (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TexasDemocrat, Dr Swig Mcjigger

      The polls were looking pretty good after his convention speech.  Americans may have been more ready for him then you give credit.  But I was eight, so I all I really remember was talking about the race with my third grade Republican classmate.

      There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

      by slothlax on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 11:55:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        slothlax, Dr Swig Mcjigger

        They were ready to tell jokes about his ethnic name...it would be years later, and a lot more immigrants transitioning to voters, for that not to be a problem.

        It was definitely a terrible staff.  I think Dukakis put too much faith in a 36 year old untested person who had never run a campaign before.  Estrich is smart, but not savvy...there is a difference.  And when things started going south, she started playing for her own future.

        Dukakis reminds me a lot of Jimmy Carter.  Very smart, great guy, but uncomfortable getting his hands dirty.  Which if we had a better media, would be important.  But we don't, so we need guys that can mix it up and go on offense.  These guys were too nice to play the mud slinging game.

        People say that's who they want...genuine and smart people persons who don't go negative.  But that's actually what created the need for a war room...Dems learning that what people say and how they vote are very different things.

      •  Polls always look good after the convention (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        slothlax

        but after the GOP convention he was behind and never really threatened Bush.

        You can argue the '88 election was decided in August by two words: Willie Horton.

        The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

        by fladem on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 07:14:13 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Dukakis was NOT a great speaker. (0+ / 0-)

      Maybe in person, but not on TV. He was not a charismatic figure. I grant you that he had an impressive intellect and resume, but he had also been a waffly enough moderate and sufficiently boring that there was little excitement for him when he ended up being the last of the Seven Dwarves left standing after the primary.

      Have a flagon and discuss the news of the day at the sign of the Green Dragon, or hear me roar on Twitter @MarkGreenFuture

      by Dracowyrm on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 02:11:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  He let himself down, too (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      slothlax

      I agree that Estrict and Brountas, to  name two, were horrible. But that fault ultimately lies with the candidate., who allowed them to get as far and stay as long as they did with the campaign. He also badly underestimate the efficacy of the Bush negative ad campaign against him and waited way too long to respond. This is way  many of us really liked Bill Clinton in 92, with his picking of a great team (Carville, Begala, Greenberg, Stephanopoulos et al) and his "Rapid Response team" which left no attack unanswered and too the initiative in going on the offense. Dukakis 88 is a textbook example of how NOT to run a campaign for president and Clinton 92 is a classic example of how to do it right.

  •  So: Dukakis' shellacking set the table? No. (0+ / 0-)

    Picking the extreme bottom of a fluctuating curve as the baseline for extrapolating a trend is a fallacious statistical approach. Why not start in 1976? Or 1980? Or 1968?

    I agree that the map is bluing up nicely. But this "analysis" doesn't really tell us anything except that, and it sure doesn't make any case that Dukakis' disaster established "toeholds" anywhere.

    I mean, he lost CALIFORNIA and ILLINOIS. C'mon.

    Have a flagon and discuss the news of the day at the sign of the Green Dragon, or hear me roar on Twitter @MarkGreenFuture

    by Dracowyrm on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 02:06:34 PM PST

    •  I didn't say is was a good campaign (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dracowyrm, Dr Swig Mcjigger

      I'm not attributing anything to Dukakis' campaign.  He lost badly.  But that's kind of the point to me.  Even in a wipeout election, the beginnings of our current run of success can be seen on that map.  Unlike the years you cite, the 1988 results show the way forward for a Democratic strategy that can afford to write off the South.  Those older races show a variety of coalitions, while I believe 1988 marks the beginning of the current political era, at least as far as presidential elections go.

      There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

      by slothlax on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 02:25:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I still think we're building coalitions. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        slothlax

        That's why states like FL and NC are in play now.

        The big drivers, though, are changing demographics, the more liberal cultural values of young people coming into the electorate, and the fact that the Republican party has gone so stark, raving, bigoted crazy that their only constituencies left are the psychotically selfish and ignorant, low-education rural whites: a population getting smaller and older by the minute, but disproportionately dominating the areas we can't compete in, like the low-population Mountain and Midwest states and the South.

        Honestly, I don't see this as being about a strategy so much as being about standing for an agenda that isn't delusional and wrong, and not spitting on everyone who isn't a christian redneck or a millionaire. Do that, run a decent campaign, and under today's conditions, you win.

        Have a flagon and discuss the news of the day at the sign of the Green Dragon, or hear me roar on Twitter @MarkGreenFuture

        by Dracowyrm on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 02:45:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't disagree (0+ / 0-)

          The whys and wherefores were not my concern.  I was pointing out the regional dynamics that you also cite and I believe the 1988 map, as opposed to the Clinton or Carter maps, is the best illustration of the beginning of the current national political era.

          There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

          by slothlax on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 02:53:06 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I think the turning point was really 2000. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        slothlax, TLS66

        Gore actually won, and he did that with Clinton's brand in the toilet and the economy falling fast. And let's face it, the estimable Mr. Gore is not the most galvanizing political figure ever to run for office.

        To me, THAT was the moment when the Reagan Revolution really ran out of gas. But when Bush was given an opportunity to steal the White House, his gang of old Reagan cronies decided to try to achieve everything they ever wanted, all at once, because they could see they might not be able to hold the White House much longer.

        The Bush Administration was rather like the red giant phase of stellar evolution for the federal-state conservative movement (at least as far as the Executive Branch goes): dying, running out of fuel (support), it inflated into a giant fiery ball that destroyed as much as it could reach before burning out.

        Have a flagon and discuss the news of the day at the sign of the Green Dragon, or hear me roar on Twitter @MarkGreenFuture

        by Dracowyrm on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 02:55:39 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Because let's not forget: Clinton really WAS (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          schumann

          Republican Lite. He adopted their agenda and claimed it for their own: NAFTA, GATT, tax cuts, welfare "reform" that caused untold suffering for millions.

          Have a flagon and discuss the news of the day at the sign of the Green Dragon, or hear me roar on Twitter @MarkGreenFuture

          by Dracowyrm on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 02:57:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  2000 is a good starting point too (0+ / 0-)

          That's how I compiled my list of swing states in the diary.  But the continuity of the 1988 map to the 2000 map is striking to me, in ways that I think 1992 and 1996 can obscure.

          There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

          by slothlax on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 03:15:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  California alone (4+ / 0-)

    made a world of difference.  From reliably Republican to not even competitive Democratic that's a ton of electorial votes in the bag.

    The only states the next candidate should try for (besides the ones O won) would be North Carolina, Georgia and Arizona.

    •  Yes. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      slothlax, Grubdnikk

      NC is going to be a pitched battle for the next few cycles, but it's definitely trending in our direction. One of the things that made the GOP freak out more than anything else in 2008 was that Obama carried NC and Indiana.

      I think Arizona is tough. It's old and white, and will remain so for awhile. But Georgia, surprisingly, really could come into play, and when it does, you can kiss the old GOP goodbye.

      Not that this is all necessarily a good thing, mind you. I don't want an American version of the PRI. Having a competitive countervailing party is a good thing for democracy as long as one of them isn't certifiably insane.

      Have a flagon and discuss the news of the day at the sign of the Green Dragon, or hear me roar on Twitter @MarkGreenFuture

      by Dracowyrm on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 02:51:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I worry about single party rule too (0+ / 0-)

        I vote for Republicans occasionally at the city and state level (never county or federal) if they are sane, because those levels of government are dominated by Democrats in my neck of the woods.  A lock on power just leads to complacency and corruption.

        There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

        by slothlax on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 02:57:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Gore didn't lose Florida. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NYFM

    Not to thread-jack. Just saying you might want to include that in your calculations--or take it out.

    I have serious doubts as to whether Kerry lost Florida either--or Ohio.

    In my opinion, it's Nevada, Colorado and Virginia in that last category.

    if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 03:10:57 PM PST

    •  I'm just going by official results (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SouthernLiberalinMD

      You can make that case for many states in many races over the years.  And there are plenty of other states in the last few cycles that were pretty darn close, but went to the same party year after year regardless.  Official results only for the purposes of the diary, but feel free to scratch under the surface of those official results.

      There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

      by slothlax on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 03:23:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Kerry lost by 5 (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      slothlax

      in 2004 - it really wasn't all that close here - and I worked like hell here in 2004.  The yards signed for Bush here exploded after the GOP convention in 2004.

      I have no doubt we lost here in 2004.

      The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

      by fladem on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 07:16:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The current map didn't start in 1988 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slothlax, fladem

    It started in 1984:

    http://my.firedoglake.com/...

    Buried under the Reagan landslide, you can see where Mondale's (relative) strengths lay, and those strengths have become the modern blue states. By contrast, in 1980 and before, the South was more Democratic leaning than the wider US.

    •  Interesting (0+ / 0-)

      As I said upthread, I am just going on official results, but I encourage anyone to scratch the surface.  Where I see the 88 map showing the first signs of our current coalition in states won, your map shows the true seeds of the realignment happening just below the surface.

      There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

      by slothlax on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:21:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is particularly true (0+ / 0-)

      in California.

      The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

      by fladem on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 07:16:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  One kicker in this is the split in the GOP. (0+ / 0-)

    so far in the House they are basically two caucuses:

    -- Birch Society Republicans (84 congressmen)

    -- business Republicans (150)

    Their two agendas are different. Their money is different: Birchers rely on billionaire money and floods of materials and "volunteers" from billionaire-funded operations.. Their slogans and world views are different.

    Their mental disorders tend to be different as well.

    Birch society is accurate. "Tea Party" is not, because the populist Tea Party of 2009 is dead. The phrase is used dishonestly.

    Birch Society Republicans: America Now Has Three Major Political Parties

    Birchers have replaced House of Representatives Business Republicans steadily 1984-2004 and again in a rush in 2010.

    Yes, birchers are close to 2/3 of the elected GOPers in the House. Senate is even more extreme.

    Changes what democrats are running against. Changes the critical issues, too. And how you want to contact voters.

    "We have done nothing to be ashamed of. We have nothing to apologize for." NRA 12/14/2012

    by bontemps2012 on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 07:18:50 AM PST

  •  Sorry GOP isn't going to win NC ever again. (0+ / 0-)

    Just saying.

    The highest form of spiritual practice is self observation with compassion.

    by NCJim on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 10:12:46 AM PST

  •  Dukakis Was a Winner After All (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slothlax

    I sure feel better now.

    "Here comes the landslide" Dick Morris

    by wild hair on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 12:44:51 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site