Skip to comments.Romney Faces a "Blue Wall" -- But Is It Solid?
Posted on 05/18/2012 7:55:36 PM PDT by neverdem
Last week, I wrote a piece suggesting that Mitt Romney's path to the presidency wasn't necessarily narrow. Rather, the breadth of that path will depend on "environmental" factors that could ultimately push him well past the 286 electoral vote ceiling that has seemingly been imposed upon the Republican party since 1992.
On the other hand, Ron Brownstein suggests that this ceiling is an outgrowth of demography and changing coalitions, and is largely etched into our electoral map. This has created a blue wall consisting of the 11 states from Maryland to Maine (except New Hampshire); the three West Coast states; and Michigan, Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Hawaii (plus the District of Columbia).
While Republicans fared well in these states from 1968 through 1988, since 1992 the increase in the minority population and the movement of Northern suburbs toward the Democrats has, according to Brownstein, placed these states out of reach for the party of Lincoln.
So which is it -- bad luck in the overall playing field, or have a substantial number of states moved irrevocably toward Democrats?
As it turns out, we can test these hypotheses fairly easily. And, as it also turns out, the truth is a bit of both.
What we can do is control for any national effects by looking at the states Partisan Voting Index, or PVI, over the past few elections (Ive chosen 1980 through 2008 in order to capture trends that started pre-1992).
As a refresher, PVI tells us how a state votes compared to the country as a whole. In other words, Reagan won Massachusetts with 51 percent of the vote in 1984. Someone unfamiliar with American politics might therefore have labeled Massachusetts a swing state. But of course, Reagan was winning nationally with 59 percent of the vote that year, in...
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Vote for Virgil Goode!!!! Only conservative running this round. Throw the two liberals down the drain.
Here’s another article about that so-called “Blue Wall,” regarding big states and urban states which have drifted way to the left due to demographic changes, and wondering if current circumstances give Republicans an opening. Incidentally, responders to the last “blue wall” thread complained about the color scheme assigned to the parties, and they are correct. Historically, red is the color of the authoritian political left.
That aside, the three most important swing states are Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.
I wonder whether Mitt might have a chance in WI this year.
It will be interesting to see how well Scott Walker does in a few weeks.
Yes, blue used to be the color for Republicans. The mainstream media made a conscientious effort to change all the historical electoral maps from red for Democrats to red for Republicans. (Look what happened at Wikipedia.)
If you look at Time or Newsweek magazines from the 1980s, you will see the original colors.
On the other hand if you look at the data the way I would (looking for factions or part of factions slipping from one major party to another over time), that is, in fact, what we see.
An astute analyst interested in making an awful lot of money as an accurate prognosticator would go find out what the identity is of the factions moving from one party to another within the states where that partisanship indicator has moved off the baseline.
Here's a thought for some smart young whippersnapper to jump on. Louisiana has been drifting Republican ~ and that's obviously because Southern White Catholic voters (onliest kind they gots eh) in Louisiana are voting Republican more often. But Katrina happened ~ and before that event many African Americans around the country found New Orleans to be a really great place to relocate their elders ~ good food, great climate (for AAs), great access to high quality medical treatment, and, best of all, some of the least expensive decent housing in America.
Is the current rejustment an echo of Katrina? Or are African Americans who move there from out of state actually voting Republican to a greater degree than the folks who've lived there all their lives?
I seem to remember them switching every election cycle. One year red for dems and blue for repubs, then the opposite next time.
In the real world, which I live in, exactly one of Mitt Romney and Bork Obunga is going to be president of the US from 2013 to at least 2016. I believe the nation could easily survive four or even eight years of Romney; I cannot picture any nation surviving eight years of Bork Obunga. Doing anything other than supporting Romney is basically trying to get Bork Obunga re-elected.
I mean, I like fantasy worlds as much as the next guy but I don't LIVE in one of them...
And the DumbKopfs at the RNC were just fine with it, even changed the wallpaper at GOP.COM to bright commie red.
Pretty much tells you all you need to know about the GOP.
I’m done arguing with these people. Over this. It’s ABO!
heck, I would vote for madoff over Obama!
Im done arguing with these people. Over this. Its ABO!
Same here. I’m done.
How's that slippery slope working for ya?........picking up speed now?
How is Obama working out for you?
Wisconsin will be in play too this time...especially after the Walker victory on June 5. It’s going to fire up both the GOP and the Union thugs.
Actually, there are many conservatives running for ‘12 POTUS from a variety of minor political parties as well as Independent runs, and I’m not including Libertarian Gary Johnson or any other Libertarians/libertarians. It’s just that Virgil Goode has the largest number of supporters, among all of the remaining conservative candidates running for ‘12 POTUS.
You responded :
Historically, red is the color of the authoritian political left.
Yes, blue used to be the color for Republicans”.
That was the way it was when I began marking my sundry precincts polling sheets with plusses, blue for Republican, and Red for minuses democrats, begining with Goldwater’s run. My hard cards (lists of registered voters) in BTW Chicago) were always marked that way.
Because of campaign costs where campaign workers would get some “walking around money” to defray their expences. With the advent of TV. Statwide camapigns relied less on personal contact and more on “media” . With that also the reliance on polling. A good precinct worker used to get feed back on various issues and relay that back to the candidates running for office.
With that increased reliance on “media” the socialists controlling the media learned very quickly they could manipulate the issues which is what we’re wittnessing today. Hence todays campaigns when they rely on that feedback..... don’t get it.
Because they are responding to what the meda created not with what the way Joe Sixpack is really concerned with.
Come back to earth. Goode is a former democRat congressman. He’s center-left at best. Definitely not conservative.
I recall reading that blue was used for the incumbent party candidate and red was for the challenger. Gore in 2000 was blue because Democrats were the incumbent at the time. The 2000 election had so much intense focus on the map and the visual was so clear about sectional divides that “red states” and “blue states” was born and we’ll probably live with it forever.
The mainstream media wanted to de-couple the color “red” from the Dem’s because their communist socialist policies were seen as “communist red” at the time. Psychological befuddlement was the goal; the need was to try to shift the paradigms to slow the growth of conservatism. Citing conservatives as the “red party” may peal some voters away who associate the color “red” with evil and death!
I ain’t vote en for Romney. No way, no how.
Principles? What are those?
Wrong, double wrong, and triple wrong.
I've followed Congressional voting records for the better part of two decades now. Years ago when Virgil Goode was a Democrat Congressman from Virginia, he had a better voting record than most of the Republicans in Congress. I remember predicting that he's eventually end up a Republican, which came true a couple of cycles later.
Assuming he's "centre-left at best" because he is a former Democrat is as erroneous as assuming that Reagan was centre-left at best because he was a former Democrat.
I see a need for what I'd call a Voters' Bill of Rights involving a bit more than just instant runoff elections however. Again the first item of such a bill HAS TO BE runoff elections or instant runoff elections for all public offices. Nobody should ever fear to vote his first choice, at least on a first ballot, and nobody should ever hold any public office with less than 50% of the vote.
There should also be a None-Of-Above choice on all ballots for public office and if that choice ever wins, then the other candidates should be barred for life from holding any public office and the parties sponsoring them should be barred for at least ten years from sponsoring candidates for that particular office. The penalty for running dead wood for public offices should be severe.
Another item on such a voters' bill of rights should be something which would eliminate voting fraud for all time and if that means getting rid of the secret ballot or at least limiting it somehow or other, so be it, we're paying too high a price for it. Or it could mean that when an election is within one percentage point, send both people to congress with half of a vote each. You could expect them to split their vote on ideological issues but vote identically on issues which affect their own district.
There should be a provision that when a president is impeached and removed, his VP goes out the door with him and the office is either vacant until the next election or an emergency election is held to fill the office for the remainder of the current term. Granted removing a president should be difficult but it should not be impossible and if we couldn't remove Slick, we'd not have been able to remove Hitler or Nero either.
What happened in 98/99 was that Trent Lott simply refused to hand the presidency over to Algor with a year to go on Slick's second term, for obvious reasons. The situation should not be possible.
A person should need to be a US citizen for 18 years before voting in a US election. It should not be possible for a rogue political party to rule our land by simply importing large voting blocks for itself. I had to be a citizen for 18 years prior to voting and I don't view any immigrants as better than I am.
There should also be some mechanism to prevent utterly unqualified people from holding high offices. Certainly a candidate for president or vice president, or for US Senator or member of the House of Representatives should need to obtain the same basic and simple secret level security clearance which anybody would need to be a guard at the gate of any military base in our land. That isn't asking for much but it would have spared us from the last two democrat presidents.
There are a few other things you'd want but that's the main gist of it. There is also a question as to the extent the people should be voting on issues directly since we now have the technology to allow that while the founding fathers did not. You could get some of these social issues settled once and for all and out of politics, and you could limit the scope for corruption and bribery by letting the people themselves settle at least some kinds of issues.
*Red/Blue state BS: Several FReepers that are receiving this ping have been rightly objecting to the GOP being labeled “Red” for years. Red is most assuredly the color of rage, unrest and Communism. Blue represents tranquility and order. The only moniker I find to be more incorrectly used by the MSM/NEA/etc. is the insistence of referring to Nazis as "right wing". What part of "National SOCIALISM" isn't understood?
Isn’t Virgil Goode running to help throw swing states such as Virginia to Obama?
No. He is running because he believes he can make the country better. Will Romney? No way. Will Obama? No way. I know you are a Romney lover so just vote for your hero but leave me out of it.
No, I am a realist. It is Obama or Romney. I’ll take Romney. He’ll sign the Obamacare repeal. Obama won’t.
Realist? Sure but because you and others SETTLE that is why we are in the mess we are in. Can’t we be bold for once?
There is no use in arguing with them, KansasGirl. I’ve given up arguiung with them.
Bold? First of all, helping to re-elect Obama is not bold. It’s stupid. Second of all, I voted didn’t vote for Romney in the primary. I don’t settle, the candidates I supported lost the primary. Romney won it. That is the hand we have been dealt. Not the hand I wanted or that you wanted, but the reality is, Obama MUST go, and Romney is the only alternative who has a chance at defeating him in November. Would I rather get a President Palin in November, heck yeah, but sadly that is not gonna happen whether I cast my vote for her or not.
If you live in a deep-blue state, e.g., CA, NY, then you can vote for who ever you please as it wont make a difference. But, you can still donate effectively as that method of support knows no bounds. On the other hand, if you live in a GW Bush 2004 state that went into the 0bama column in 2008, then you have the duty. 0bama must be defeated; take one for the team.
Outstanding comment, Thank You very much.
Doing anything other than supporting Romney is basically trying to get Bork Obunga re-elected.
That’s absolutely right.
I assume you mean post 23 and the notion of a voters’ bill of rights. Please feel free to pass that one around, those ideas need to get out.
I agree with you.....still upset over the whole thing. November will vote for Romney grudgingly, but I hate even saying it at least this early.
I guess my hate for Obama trumps my disdain for Romney! ;-)
There should also be a None-Of-Above choice on all ballots for public office and if that choice ever wins, then the other candidates should be barred for life from holding any public office and the parties sponsoring them should be barred for at least ten years from sponsoring candidates for that particular office. The penalty for running dead wood for public offices should be severe.Excellent post #23. Particularly this detail. I love it. Great idea.
Red is also the color of passion and devotion. Which is why Marx chose it, and that is something we can uses in our zeal to restore our rights as preserved by Constitutionally finite(small) government. Historic uses by the left for movement in the other direction not-withstanding.
What is troubling about this aside from the race based collation of democratic party is the California invasion of Nevada.
Perhaps we should recommend that Nevada republicans attempt to fight this invasion with stricter(longer) residency requirements, and some investigation regarding the cross border political influence of California.
I think it very unlikely given democratic practices else where that Nevada Democrats are not buss in Californians to throw Nevada elections.
The big issue however is California that flee their own states self-destruction while holding on to the political values that led to that same self-destruction.
Refugees should assimilate not bring their problems with them.
“Red is also the color of passion and devotion. Which is why Marx chose it, and that is something we can uses in our zeal to restore our rights as preserved by Constitutionally finite(small) government. Historic uses by the left for movement in the other direction not-withstanding.”
You make a very good point. I’ve never thought of it that way before.
No, he won't. Haven't you been paying attention?
High-dollar GOP types love Obamacare and want to keep it at all costs, so they can get rid of employer-paid healthcare. They want to dump workers off on Obamacare. What happens after that, they don't GAS -- their health care will be paid for either by executive programs or by their own endless, evergreen millions.
Everyone else can go eat rocks.
That's the reality.
They love Obamacare -- they just want the Dems to get all the blame and hate and discontent. That's why they wanted the Dems to win in both 2008 and 2012. Yes, they are that cynical and blackhearted.
The rich really are different.
The last election when a GOP candidate lost one of these states and still cruised to victory was Calvin Coolidge in 1924 when Florida was still very much a deep south state. Hoover came and won all three three years later.
The last election when a Democrat candidate lost one of these states and still cruised to victory was FDR four years after that.
Ever since, the rule has held. Ever since Florida became a state (1848) election, no presidential candidate has ever lost two of the three and still won the election with the solitary exception of Grover Cleveland (1888 and 1892), who limped over the finish line with 49% and 46% of the popular vote (respectively) while losing both Pennsylvania and Ohio.
Who cares? The point is the media chose it for us. They don't want the democrats associated with RED because of it's ties to socialism. And they get away with it cause even the few politically intelligent people that have noticed don't care.
We don't need official party colors anyway, that has never been a American thing. I would only use it for the election maps and I would not use the color used by most socialist parties in the world for the Republicans. That's ridiculous. I'm not gonna play along out of laziness or try to spin that "red is the color of passion". Those kind of games are for little kids that don't like the color of their toothbrush.
As to this "blue wall" stuff. Romney does not need any of the states listed as "blue". And it's wrong to list Wisconsin and Michican with those others. Especially Wisconsin. Bush would have won it in 2004 if not for fraud.
And where is the talk of the "red wall" of wall of over 20 states that Osama has no chance in hell of winning?
“The point is the media chose it for us. They don’t want the democrats associated with RED because of it’s ties to socialism.”
And THAT’S the bottom line!!!
Better dead than red.
But for how long can that saying and associations be maintained? Nobody could seriously associate conservatives with Communist.
Perhaps if there was an agenda it was an effort to protect the left. I doubt it now, and in any case we can and should use this to our advantage.
“But for how long can that saying and associations be maintained? Nobody could seriously associate conservatives with Communist.”
On a worldwide political basis, red is still the color associated with Communism.
The libs are “students” of psychology, and I’m sure it’s to their advantage to be “blue” for the reasons stated prior in this thread.
I can only say I will vote for someone other than Romney and Obama. He did not want my vote and nor can I vote for him. I will only wish him good luck because the guy is a mess.
At the moment I have been reading up on Massachusetts politics. Our hole political system is in a bit of a mess. A lot of problems.
I can add that I hate the entire political system at the moment. It is more than Romney and Obama for me now. Because as I read more and learn more and listen to more I have come to see the whole system is infected and a mess. People ranging from George Soros and Alvin Toffler to Van Jones, Karl Rove and William Ayers have been pulling the strings.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.