Posted on 09/04/2013 4:54:53 AM PDT by iowamark
Last December, Jennifer Duffy, an election analyst at the Cook Political Report, came up with a particularly tantalizing set of data points, the kind that demand further exploration.
In 1988, the Democratic presidential nominee, Michael Dukakis, carried 26 percent of the nation’s counties, 819 of 3144, on his way to losing the Electoral College 426-111 and the popular vote by seven percentage points. In 2012, President Obama won fewer counties, 690, but he won the popular vote by four points and the Electoral College in a landslide, 332-206.
The forces behind this shift illuminate the internal realignments taking place within the two major political parties. But first let’s look at how a candidate could carry 129 fewer counties but come out way ahead on Election Day.
In the simplest terms, Democrats started to win populous suburban counties in big states with lots of Electoral College votes beginning with Bill Clinton’s first presidential campaign in 1992, at the same time that they began to lose sparsely populated rural counties, many of which lie in small states with very few Electoral College votes.
Take two states as an illustration of this phenomenon: small, thinly populated West Virginia and populous, relatively suburban Pennsylvania.
In 1988, Dukakis won West Virginia’s 5 Electoral College votes 52-47, carrying 31 of 55 counties, 10 of them with more than 60 percent of the vote. In 2012, Obama was crushed in West Virginia by Mitt Romney 62-38, losing in all 55 counties.
In Pennsylvania in 1988, Dukakis lost the state’s 25 Electoral College votes to George H. W. Bush, 51-48. The four major suburban counties surrounding Philadelphia — Bucks, Chester, Delaware and Montgomery — backed Bush over Dukakis by a landslide margin 62-38...
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com ...
And in some of those PA precincts more people voted Democrat than there were registered voters, but according to Democrats, there is no such thing as voter fraud. And Republicans are too busy gazing at their navels after their losses to challenge such blatant examples of cheating.
And, in some very blue states such as Illinois some precincts voted 100% Democrat. Now, one doesn’t have to be a statistician to know that this is virtually impossible without a lot of jiggering aka cheating.
Interesting article, but the NYTimes of course is full of problematic reporting...
“Richard Florida of the University of Toronto, the author of “The Rise of the Creative Class,”
Professor Florida himself this year admitted his Creative Class revitalization vision has failed. It was a huge mea culpa, as much of the western world’s failing metro areas had adopted his mantra over the last 30 years.
Detroit took a shot across the bow from the state of Michigan this week when some 24,000 votes were re-added giving the white guy the primary win. New laws requiring audits of of votes in traditionally “problem” areas means Detroit faces serious scrutiny in coming elections.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3062241/posts
There is also a lot of support for dropping the winner take all system in our presidential races.
In my opinion, study of any Democratic coalition with respect to the timelines of any President before Bill Clinton is meaningless. It is here, with him, that the media actively began their coverup and excusal of reprehensible acts on a wholesale basis.
Sure, there was Kennedy, and his brother, womanizing letches for sure. Drugs, likely...but back then there was just the big three and NYT and Washington Post to keep the faith, primarily. Even before that was the print media’s hiding of FDRs wheelchair bound existence. But still not on so grand a level.
With Bill Clinton, the coverup and collusion became ubiquitous throughout the electronic and print media, right down to Forbes and the glam mags. Lying (using specificity and meanings of single words as a defense), cheating, stealing (Hillary and her $1000 investment), mysterious deaths, paid pardons, et al became just Clinton Rock Star guffaws and excuses - the Republicans were always much, much worse as the story went.
But Obama, certainly with no overt and in-your-face provable sex escapades resorted to us this symbiotic relationship with media to a different course. Entitlements, subversion of the leeches’ morals and work ethic, hatred for America - ‘getting paid.’ Race hate, revenge and the old adage “The slave yearns not to be free, but to be master.” All of it.
In short, you just name a vice, a character flaw, laziness, sloth, perversion, ethnic persuasion, any non-white race, and the Democrat party and combined media have a virtual lock on the outcome, even without the massive election fraud they are so good at.
And it has not one thing to do with Dukakis or any of the other ancient Democrat relics.
108% registered to vote in Detroit.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3060420/posts
Story is from last week. The state has since stepped in and corrected the vote.
In my opinion, study of any Democratic coalition with respect to the timelines of any President before Bill Clinton is meaningless. It is here, with him, that the media actively began their coverup and excusal of reprehensible acts on a wholesale basis.
Sure, there was Kennedy, and his brother, womanizing letches for sure. Drugs, likely...but back then there was just the big three and NYT and Washington Post to keep the faith, primarily. Even before that was the print media’s hiding of FDRs wheelchair bound existence. But still not on so grand a level.
With Bill Clinton, the coverup and collusion became ubiquitous throughout the electronic and print media, right down to Forbes and the glam mags. Lying (using specificity and meanings of single words as a defense), cheating, stealing (Hillary and her $1000 investment), mysterious deaths, paid pardons, et al became just Clinton Rock Star guffaws and excuses - the Republicans were always much, much worse as the story went.
But Obama, certainly with no overt and in-your-face provable sex escapades resorted to us this symbiotic relationship with media to a different course. Entitlements, subversion of the leeches’ morals and work ethic, hatred for America - ‘getting paid.’ Race hate, revenge and the old adage “The slave yearns not to be free, but to be master.” All of it.
In short, you just name a vice, a character flaw, laziness, sloth, perversion, ethnic persuasion, any non-white race, and the Democrat party and combined media have a virtual lock on the outcome, even without the massive election fraud they are so good at.
And it has not one thing to do with Dukakis or any of the other ancient Democrat relics.
Excellent summary. Should be taught as a civics course on how America declined.
We had the same in some Philadelphia, Pennsylvania precincts.
I was in Philly on election day 2012. Most of the polling places were empty or light traffic. No long lines, no crowds that would indicate such a massive turnout and zero votes for Romney.
There is no doubt about fraud in the safest Dem precincts nationwide. They are very wise and know how to craft the vote rigging to ensure a statewide majority.
That is why Dems fear Voter ID and proportional allocation of electors....it would disrupt their current vote fraud schemes.
As Hispanics continue to feel their oats, they are going to demand to be moved ahead of Blacks in the pecking order for “most favored minority”.
THAT is going to be the Dems’ moment of crisis.
Jennifer Duffy is a left wing loon, but she is very good at what she does, examining statistical data on elections. Her report deserves careful attention and thought.
First, the shift in voting patterns in suburbs is real and has serious short and long term implications. Without the suburbs, conservatives can kiss any hope of political control goodbye. The liberals will reign at state and national levels and conservatives will be left to huddle in their cabins in the woods and curse the darkness.
Second, how is it that suburban district that once were reliably GOP are now voting for Democrats on an increasingly regular basis. I believe that, in part, this is a function of the overall success of the education system in producing liberals. Schools now preach a liberal message from pre school through graduate school while conservative views are not tolerated. Young adults can be expected to accept the liberal slant and will likely take longer to come to their senses once they are away from the education system. The more these folks cluster in suburbia, the less likely conservative candidates can will elections there.
Third, I suspect that this phenomenon is greater among females than among males. Women tend to think of themselves as beneficiaries of left wing social trends and probably are the segment of the electorate delivering Democrat majorities in suburban districts.
The politicians are very attuned to this trend which is why we see the Republican Party swerving away from it’s conservative base. Conservatives aren’t very good at handling this sort of dynamic. The Democrats are very good at telling a different story to each of their disparate groups, then governing as hard core lefties. In any case, the battleground is the suburbs and it’s a battle that we can’t afford to lose.
Second, how is it that suburban district that once were reliably GOP are now voting for Democrats on an increasingly regular basis.
Some people are dying. Other people are moving away from high taxes and places with high costs of living.
“'The Big Sort' focuses on one of the key factors behind these geographic trends: people are increasingly choosing to move into neighborhoods and communities of like-minded people who share their political views, creating what Bishop and Cushing call 'way-of-life segregation.'”
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.