Doris Kearns Goodwin has become the prominent scholar and historian for President Abraham Lincoln largely due to her "Team of Rivals" book about Lincoln and the Election of 1860 and how he built his presidential cabinet largely from men who attempted to defeat him for the Republican presidential nomination in 1860. Now as President Barack Obama digests his reelection a few weeks ago and prepares for a second term, Kearns Goodwin brings Lincoln's leadership style to today's day and age and President Obama.
Lillian Cunningham of the Washington Post sat down with Kearns Goodwin to gather some insight.
Cunningham: You’ve done several interviews lately about Abraham Lincoln in light of the film’s premiere. What’s been on your mind about Lincoln and leadership that no one has yet asked you?
Kearns Goodwin: You’ve done several interviews lately about Abraham Lincoln in light of the film’s premiere. What’s been on your mind about Lincoln and leadership that no one has yet asked you? C
Cunningham: Do you think this is a skill Obama has? How unique of a skill is it?
Kearns Goodwin: What it depends on is having that feel for the country, and I think he has it — certainly he did at the moment that he finally made the decision to go for health care, in full, even after losing the Massachusetts Senate seat. He took a risk in making that decision then. Yet had he not done it then, and done it in the way he did, he probably would not have gotten it [passed]. He himself would probably acknowledge, though, that maybe he waited too long to give his health-care speech before the joint session of Congress. It was a really good speech, but that summer is when all of the tea party’s strength had begun to gather. So the question would be: Had he delivered that speech earlier and explained more clearly what the health-care program was, would it have made a difference? I don’t know. But those are the things you think about when you’re looking back, and the great thing about President Obama is that he’s likely to do that. He has that kind of temperament, just as Lincoln did, to look back and try to figure out what he did that he could have done better.
Cunningham: Speaking of the health-care act, the president certainly weathered some critiques that he was everything from obstinate to foolish for pushing it through. Yet what we call “obstinacy” today could go down as “perseverance” in the history books, and “foolishness” as “vision.” Any advice on how to tell whether criticism will be lasting and valid, or whether the leadership traits you’re being criticized for in the moment are the very ones that will win you praise in the long run?
Kearns Goodwin: What’s important, I think, is somehow knowing what the goal is that you want to achieve and being patient enough to know that it may take a lot of messiness to get to it. When you see the movie “Lincoln,” you realize what was done in order to get those congressmen to vote for the 13th Amendment. Even during the health-care battle, I remember there was so much criticism of side deals made with Senator Baucus and some of the other senators, which is part of the legislative process. I mean LBJ did that all the time. It was said that when he got minority leader Everett Dirksen to go with him on the filibuster on the civil rights bill, he promised him everything. But the goal to get the civil rights bill that desegregated the South was a worthy goal. We’ve made the process of compromise so public that it sometimes looks troubling and foolish at the moment. But if it’s moving toward an end that history’s going to recognize as something that stands the test of time — as the 13th Amendment did, as I think the health-care bill will, certainly as the civil rights bill of 1964 did — then you should be willing to do some things that may get immediate criticism. Keep going if you believe that, in the end, it’s worth even the criticism you may get at the moment. Obama does seem to have what both FDR and Lincoln had, which is the recognition that you have to hold back at times and then wait to come forward. FDR once said he was like a cat, that he would pounce and then relax. That’s much harder to do in the 24-hour cable world, because it’s almost like the press demands of you to be saying something or doing something every day. I think both Lincoln and FDR had an easier time in that sense. They could hold back when they wanted to and not come forward until they were sure. Lincoln, for example, hated to speak spontaneously. He was always conscious that he wanted it to be right when he spoke. Could you imagine things for him today, with cameras and microphones being thrust in his face?
Cunningham: How has your study of Lincoln shaped the way you think of your own leadership style and character?
Kearns Goodwin: Each one of these dead presidents I’ve lived with, they each have an impact in a different way. I think what was most striking about Lincoln was not even so much his public leadership as his emotional intelligence and his temperament. When you’re in his presence, somehow you just keep wishing you could be more like him. Instead of obsessing about something that happened in the past, you could just allow it to go away. Or instead of trying to retaliate against someone who hurt you, just not think about them anymore and know that, as he said, your opponents today may be your allies tomorrow. I think, on a personal level, anybody who’s lived with Lincoln has been affected by that emotional strength of his. There was a great muckraker, Ida Tarbell, at the end of the 20th century — who I’m partly writing about now — and she wrote about Lincoln too. Somebody asked her, why do so many people write about Lincoln? And she said, because he’s so companionable. And I think somehow that’s been true for me. The other thing, which already mattered enormously to me before I started Lincoln but got reinforced, was the importance of telling stories as a way of communicating to an audience. That’s such a huge part of leadership. He’d be in the middle of a terrible Cabinet meeting, and he’d tell this funny story and make everyone laugh. That’s the other part of what you learn from Lincoln. He said that you use laughter to whistle off sadness. There’s something about humor and laughter that’s so refreshing, that in difficult times if you can remember to look at yourself and laugh from the outside in, then I think it’s really helpful.
Cunningham: Do you think that the study of leadership is by definition the study of history? Are they inextricably bound?
Kearns Goodwin: I think to some extent they are. Even if you’re studying the leadership of a CEO, you’re studying his experience of leading that company over a certain period of time, even though it may not be 100 years ago, it may be five or 10 years ago. But certainly for presidential leadership, what’s rewarding for me as I move from one president to another is that you do see traits in one president that another president might share. Some universal traits I’ve seen in these leaders when I’ve looked at them over time are the ability to trust people within their inner circle, the ability to communicate with stories or metaphors or language that’s understandable, the ability to acknowledge errors and the ability to learn from mistakes.
Cunningham: Team of Rivals and now the film are both huge, national portraits of Lincoln that you’ve helped craft. I’d love for you to tell me what you see as the role of the historian in shaping our collective vision of time.
Kearns Goodwin: I guess what matters to me the most is, especially with someone like Lincoln, I mean here is a man who all of his life dreamed that his story would be told after he died in order to make him feel more comforted that death is not the end of you. Because he lost so many people when he was young — his mother and his sister and his first love — he really became for a while obsessed with the thought of what happens to us after we die. He came away with the thought that if he could accomplish something worthy then he would live on in the memory of others.
So to the extent that historians tell stories of these people who lived before, I think it does allow them to live on in our memories. That’s what’s so important about the oral tradition in families — if you can tell the stories of your parents and grandparents once they’re no longer alive, then you’re passing them onto your children. There always are lessons to be learned from their struggles and their triumphs. Otherwise we’d just come into the world with a blank slate, and that’s not true. Just as we as human beings learn from our parents and grandparents, also we as a country learn from the people who went before us. And to the extent that historians are the ones telling those stories, that shapes the sense of who we are as a country.
Cunningham: How do you think our country’s sense of leadership has been uniquely shaped by Lincoln, and by having this figure in our past?
Kearns Goodwin: There’s no question that the man who won the war and saved the Union and ended slavery forever shaped the destiny of this country in a huge way. But beyond his accomplishments as president at that moment in time, there is something about his person that affects people. You find little kids interested in Lincoln, little kids wearing stovepipe hats. There’s something about that story of him educating himself, of having lost so much when he was young, of having been in a depression and come out of it. There’s something emotionally available about Lincoln that makes him a figure to identify with, beyond the fact of what he was a part of. All presidents worry that unless they have some huge challenge like war or depression, they may not be remembered as great presidents. Obviously had one of the biggest challenges of any president and he met it brilliantly.
Cunningham: Turning back to Obama, some say that his desire to build his own “team of rivals” when he entered office was more appearance than substance. How do you think he did on that front? And as we look forward to a second term, what specific advice do you have for how he can build the right team of rivals in the next couple months?
Kearns Goodwin: Obviously the most important addition to his Cabinet, it turned out, was the chief rival — Hillary Clinton. And I think that relationship has proved to be extraordinarily professional, valuable and strengthening for both President Obama and Hillary Clinton. He did also bring in Joe Biden, who had run against him, as vice president. But most importantly, too, he tried to get [Republican] Judd Gregg, who first accepted the idea of being in the Cabinet and then retreated from it. What that suggests is that it’s harder today to walk across those party lines to bring top people into top positions than it would have been in FDR’s time when he brought in two Republican leaders. Still, Obama also kept Bob Gates on, and that had been a Republican nomination. So I think he did more than we think he did — and in the current climate, which makes it much harder to do. But I think, going forward, maybe the person he can learn from now is Franklin Roosevelt. If we assume the recession is not simply a problem that’s slowly recovering but that there’s a deeper problem with the economy, then Obama should possibly bring some CEO into the government in a senior-level position the way Roosevelt did. He needed to mobilize for the war, so he brought in the head of Sears Roebuck and the head of Chrysler, in addition to those two Republicans in his Cabinet. He was able to create the greatest business-government partnership probably in the history of our country, as business guys came through building ships, tanks, weapons and planes that were used by our allies in all corners of the world. It’s hard for some of today’s business leaders to go through the whole process of what they have to reveal in order to come into the government. Yet just as it was true for the CEOs in Roosevelt’s time — who felt like they wanted to give back to their country, which had given so much to them — I think for some top business leaders, the chance to really help get our country mobilized for the future in a better way would be a great honor and a great challenge.
Cunningham: Do you think he should extend the invitation to Mitt Romney in some form?
Kearns Goodwin: You know, I had thought he would. But I think it just depends now on what Romney takes away from the election, and if he takes away what he said the other day — that he simply lost because Obama had given gifts to various segments of the population — that kind of thinking would make it hard. I had originally thought that it would be a good idea. He could come in and deal with a lot of the export-import issues. But I think it’s now a challenge for Romney himself to figure out what went wrong and if he really has the power within him to see that perhaps part of it had to do with the Republican primary system. It will take him acknowledging what happened, before he can take the next step of contributing going forward.
Sunday, December 2, 2012
Monday, November 5, 2012
Presidential Geography: Ohio
The 2012 presidential election is almost here and there is still time for ads, debates, campaign stops, and polls. While the race will likely come down to about a dozen states, each state truly does play some role and even safe states for either party are needed to guarantee victory in November.
The New York Times and Micah Cohen have been taking a state by state look at each state throughout the the weeks leading up to Election Day. Next up is Ohio.
Ohio:
If the polls are correct, and President Obama wins a narrow Electoral College victory on Tuesday, the pivotal moment of the 2012 presidential race may have actually occurred in 2009. About two months after taking office, Mr. Obama set the terms of the government’s rescue of General Motors and Chrysler, a move that eventually helped to resurrect the American automobile industry, and, in turn, bolster the economy of the king of swing states: Ohio.
Historically, Ohio has been slightly Republican-leaning relative to the nation. But this year polls suggest that Ohio is slightly Democratic-leaning. That divergence — driven by the auto rescue and the state’s improved economy, local analysts said — may prove determinative. Ohio ranks first on FiveThirtyEight’s tipping point index. The model estimates there is roughly a 50 percent chance that the Buckeye State’s 18 electoral votes will carry the winning candidate past the 270 mark.
Ohio’s historic rightward lean has been slight — about two percentage points, on average, since 1948 — but consistent. In the 16 presidential elections from 1948 through 2008, Ohio was redder than the nation in 13. It was Democratic-leaning relative to the nation only in 1964, 1972 and 2004 (and in 2004, it leaned Democratic by less than half a percentage point).
But polls show Mr. Obama leading Mitt Romney in Ohio by about three percentage points, one point better than Mr. Obama’s projected national margin, according to the current FiveThirtyEight forecast. The auto rescue’s impact on Ohio’s political preferences, though modest, has been decisive.
“The auto rescue is popular in Ohio,” Mr. Beck said, and because the Buckeye State was only slightly Republican-leaning, a small shift appears to have tipped the state’s partisan balance.
Moreover, the auto rescue and Ohio’s steadily falling unemployment rate appear to have improved Mr. Obama’s standing with the very demographic group that Mr. Romney might have made inroads with: white working-class voters.
“White working-class voters in Ohio have been more supportive of Obama than white working-class voters nationwide,” Mr. Beck said.
Ohio’s economy has traditionally been driven by manufacturing. “Ohio led the industrial revolution 100 years ago,” Mr. Asher said, but in the latter half of the 20th century, globalization and the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs hurt the state’s economy.
Early in the 2012 presidential campaign, during the summer, the Obama campaign saturated Ohio television with advertisements highlighting Mr. Romney’s “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt” op-ed article in The Times as well as linking Mr. Romney to Bain Capital and linking Bain Capital to outsourcing, Mr. Asher said. For many Ohio voters, that effort helped undermine Mr. Romney’s contention that his business experience would benefit them if he reached the White House.
As a result, Mr. Beck said, many of the white working-class voters whom Mr. Romney might have appealed to now see him “as the kind of businessman who for many of them was the problem.”
Mr. Asher added, “The Obama campaign defined Mr. Romney, and that appeal gets reinforcement by the auto bailout.”
The Democratic Party’s base of support in Ohio is in the northeast part of the state, a mix of African-American and blue-collar union voters in Cleveland, Canton, Akron and Youngstown. In 2008, Mr. Obama carried Ohio by just over 200,000 votes; he carried Cleveland’s Cuyahoga County by almost 250,000 votes. Northeastern Ohio is also the center of the state’s auto industry, in Cuyahoga and Lake Counties.
From Cleveland, Democratic support fades as you travel west along Lake Erie (though Toledo is reliably left-leaning) and southeast along Ohio’s border with Pennsylvania. Democrats have also made some gains in Ohio’s other major cities. Franklin County, which includes the state capital, Columbus, has trended Democratic, and Mr. Obama made gains in Dayton in 2008, as well.
In 2008, Mr. Obama also managed to flip Hamilton County, home to Cincinnati, which had long been one of the more Republican-leaning cities in the state.
Conversely, Democratic support has eroded in southeastern Ohio, which is part of Appalachia. The southeast is culturally conservative and economically depressed. Bill Clinton carried many of the counties there, but they have moved sharply toward the G.O.P. since then. Coal was a major economic driver in southeastern Ohio, and Mr. Romney has targeted voters in the area by attacking Mr. Obama’s energy policies. But the southeast is also lightly populated, contributing only about 10 percent of the statewide vote, Mr. Asher said.
Outside of the northeast and Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati, Ohio is mostly Republican-leaning. Western Ohio, in particular, is ruby red and socially conservative. To carry the state, Mr. Romney will need to run up his margins in the suburban and exurban counties in southwestern Ohio around Cincinnati as well as the small towns along the state’s western border. In 2008, Senator John McCain carried those counties, but he did not get the turnout and margins that George W. Bush did in 2004.
The Bellwether: Stark County
Stark County, anchored by Canton, has been an almost perfect bellwether for the statewide vote in Ohio in the past three presidential elections. Canton tends to vote Democratic, but Stark County also has more rural areas that lean Republican. Stark County was one percentage point more Republican-leaning that Ohio over all in 2008 and 2000 and two points more Republican-leaning in 2004.
The Bottom Line
Mr. Obama is an 85 percent favorite to carry Ohio, according to the current FiveThirtyEight forecast. Not coincidentally, that almost exactly matches his odds of winning re-election, according to the model.
If not for the auto rescue, Ohio’s slight Republican lean would most likely have remained in effect. Unlike in other states, there are no major demographic trends affecting the state’s partisan balance.
“Ohio in terms of demographics is a fairly static state,” Mr. Beck said. “Our Hispanic population is too small to matter except at the margins.”
If Ohio were, relative to the national popular vote, two percentage points Republican-leaning this election — its average over the last 60 years — the state would be a tossup. And if Mr. Romney were able to carry Ohio, he would have many more paths to the 270 electoral votes he needs to win the White House.
But if the polls are right, and the auto rescue and Ohio’s relatively healthy economy help Mr. Obama prevail in the Buckeye State, then it becomes difficult — though not impossible — for Mr. Romney to piece together a winning electoral map.
The New York Times and Micah Cohen have been taking a state by state look at each state throughout the the weeks leading up to Election Day. Next up is Ohio.
Ohio:
If the polls are correct, and President Obama wins a narrow Electoral College victory on Tuesday, the pivotal moment of the 2012 presidential race may have actually occurred in 2009. About two months after taking office, Mr. Obama set the terms of the government’s rescue of General Motors and Chrysler, a move that eventually helped to resurrect the American automobile industry, and, in turn, bolster the economy of the king of swing states: Ohio.
Historically, Ohio has been slightly Republican-leaning relative to the nation. But this year polls suggest that Ohio is slightly Democratic-leaning. That divergence — driven by the auto rescue and the state’s improved economy, local analysts said — may prove determinative. Ohio ranks first on FiveThirtyEight’s tipping point index. The model estimates there is roughly a 50 percent chance that the Buckeye State’s 18 electoral votes will carry the winning candidate past the 270 mark.
Ohio’s historic rightward lean has been slight — about two percentage points, on average, since 1948 — but consistent. In the 16 presidential elections from 1948 through 2008, Ohio was redder than the nation in 13. It was Democratic-leaning relative to the nation only in 1964, 1972 and 2004 (and in 2004, it leaned Democratic by less than half a percentage point).
But polls show Mr. Obama leading Mitt Romney in Ohio by about three percentage points, one point better than Mr. Obama’s projected national margin, according to the current FiveThirtyEight forecast. The auto rescue’s impact on Ohio’s political preferences, though modest, has been decisive.
“The auto rescue is popular in Ohio,” Mr. Beck said, and because the Buckeye State was only slightly Republican-leaning, a small shift appears to have tipped the state’s partisan balance.
Moreover, the auto rescue and Ohio’s steadily falling unemployment rate appear to have improved Mr. Obama’s standing with the very demographic group that Mr. Romney might have made inroads with: white working-class voters.
“White working-class voters in Ohio have been more supportive of Obama than white working-class voters nationwide,” Mr. Beck said.
Ohio’s economy has traditionally been driven by manufacturing. “Ohio led the industrial revolution 100 years ago,” Mr. Asher said, but in the latter half of the 20th century, globalization and the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs hurt the state’s economy.
Early in the 2012 presidential campaign, during the summer, the Obama campaign saturated Ohio television with advertisements highlighting Mr. Romney’s “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt” op-ed article in The Times as well as linking Mr. Romney to Bain Capital and linking Bain Capital to outsourcing, Mr. Asher said. For many Ohio voters, that effort helped undermine Mr. Romney’s contention that his business experience would benefit them if he reached the White House.
As a result, Mr. Beck said, many of the white working-class voters whom Mr. Romney might have appealed to now see him “as the kind of businessman who for many of them was the problem.”
Mr. Asher added, “The Obama campaign defined Mr. Romney, and that appeal gets reinforcement by the auto bailout.”
The Democratic Party’s base of support in Ohio is in the northeast part of the state, a mix of African-American and blue-collar union voters in Cleveland, Canton, Akron and Youngstown. In 2008, Mr. Obama carried Ohio by just over 200,000 votes; he carried Cleveland’s Cuyahoga County by almost 250,000 votes. Northeastern Ohio is also the center of the state’s auto industry, in Cuyahoga and Lake Counties.
From Cleveland, Democratic support fades as you travel west along Lake Erie (though Toledo is reliably left-leaning) and southeast along Ohio’s border with Pennsylvania. Democrats have also made some gains in Ohio’s other major cities. Franklin County, which includes the state capital, Columbus, has trended Democratic, and Mr. Obama made gains in Dayton in 2008, as well.
In 2008, Mr. Obama also managed to flip Hamilton County, home to Cincinnati, which had long been one of the more Republican-leaning cities in the state.
Conversely, Democratic support has eroded in southeastern Ohio, which is part of Appalachia. The southeast is culturally conservative and economically depressed. Bill Clinton carried many of the counties there, but they have moved sharply toward the G.O.P. since then. Coal was a major economic driver in southeastern Ohio, and Mr. Romney has targeted voters in the area by attacking Mr. Obama’s energy policies. But the southeast is also lightly populated, contributing only about 10 percent of the statewide vote, Mr. Asher said.
Outside of the northeast and Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati, Ohio is mostly Republican-leaning. Western Ohio, in particular, is ruby red and socially conservative. To carry the state, Mr. Romney will need to run up his margins in the suburban and exurban counties in southwestern Ohio around Cincinnati as well as the small towns along the state’s western border. In 2008, Senator John McCain carried those counties, but he did not get the turnout and margins that George W. Bush did in 2004.
The Bellwether: Stark County
Stark County, anchored by Canton, has been an almost perfect bellwether for the statewide vote in Ohio in the past three presidential elections. Canton tends to vote Democratic, but Stark County also has more rural areas that lean Republican. Stark County was one percentage point more Republican-leaning that Ohio over all in 2008 and 2000 and two points more Republican-leaning in 2004.
The Bottom Line
Mr. Obama is an 85 percent favorite to carry Ohio, according to the current FiveThirtyEight forecast. Not coincidentally, that almost exactly matches his odds of winning re-election, according to the model.
If not for the auto rescue, Ohio’s slight Republican lean would most likely have remained in effect. Unlike in other states, there are no major demographic trends affecting the state’s partisan balance.
“Ohio in terms of demographics is a fairly static state,” Mr. Beck said. “Our Hispanic population is too small to matter except at the margins.”
If Ohio were, relative to the national popular vote, two percentage points Republican-leaning this election — its average over the last 60 years — the state would be a tossup. And if Mr. Romney were able to carry Ohio, he would have many more paths to the 270 electoral votes he needs to win the White House.
But if the polls are right, and the auto rescue and Ohio’s relatively healthy economy help Mr. Obama prevail in the Buckeye State, then it becomes difficult — though not impossible — for Mr. Romney to piece together a winning electoral map.
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Presidential Geography: Virginia
The 2012 presidential election is almost here and there is still time for ads, debates, campaign stops, and polls. While the race will likely come down to about a dozen states, each state truly does play some role and even safe states for either party are needed to guarantee victory in November.
The New York Times and Micah Cohen have been taking a state by state look at each state throughout the the weeks leading up to Election Day. Next up is Virginia.
Virginia:
Polling of the presidential race in Virginia has been particularly volatile. Since the beginning of October, polls at various points have shown both a seven-point lead for Mitt Romney and a seven-point lead for President Obama.
The political landscape in Virginia has shifted dramatically in recent years, and the disagreement among the polls is essentially a disagreement about which Virginia will dominate on Election Day: the reliably Republican “Old Virginia,” which is more religious, rural, working-class and white, or the politically competitive “New Virginia,” which is more secular, urban, diverse and white-collar.
In 2008, New Virginia made its debut at the presidential level, with Mr. Obama becoming the first Democrat to carry the state since 1964. He won by six percentage points.
But in the following two years, Old Virginia has roared back. Turnout in nonpresidential elections tends to be substantially more favorable to Republican candidates. Bob McDonnell, a Republican, won the governor’s race in 2009, and the party picked up three House seats in 2010. Republicans now represent 8 of Virginia’s 11 Congressional districts.
Political analysts often group Virginia and North Carolina together as the “New South.” Both states — reliably red for years — turned blue in 2008, pushed toward the political center by highly-educated white-collar voters who have moved there and by fast-growing Hispanic populations.
But while similar demographic trends have been reshaping both states’ politics, the changes have been more apparent in Virginia. Mr. Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina was razor thin. In Virginia, however, Mr. Obama’s margin of victory matched his margin nationwide almost exactly.
Virginia’s political balance has shifted far enough left that it is now very close to a tipping point. In fact, it has the smallest Republican lean, 1.9 percentage points, of any state in FiveThirtyEight’s Presidential Voting Index. North Carolina, by contrast, is almost eight percentage points to the right of the national average.
As Mr. Romney’s polling improved nationally after the first presidential debate, North Carolina appeared to fall off the list of main battleground states. Mr. Romney is currently a 79 percent favorite to carry North Carolina, according to the FiveThirtyEight forecast. In Virginia, Mr. Obama is still favored.
Democrats there have an advantage that Democrats in North Carolina do not: The explosive growth of suburban Washington.
In 1970, Northern Virginia accounted for 12 percent of the state’s population, according to the Almanac of American Politics, and 61 percent of Virginians lived in small towns and rural communities.
But in the 2010 census, one-third of Virginia residents lived in Northern Virginia. The Richmond area and the Hampton Roads region have grown too, and more than half of the state’s residents live in urban areas.
Northern Virginia now has a much greater influence in statewide elections. As the Washington suburbs have expanded, Northern Virginia has become more diverse and better educated. It is home to thousands of government workers and contractors, including many employed by defense and high-tech companies.
Northern Virginia has also become more affluent. The top 3 richest counties in the nation by median income (and 5 of the top 10) are all in the Virginia portion of suburban Washington. Loudoun County is No. 1, followed by Fairfax and Arlington Counties.
Fairfax County — the most populous in the state, with more than a million residents — has been ground zero for the demographic change, Mr. Skelley said. In 1996, Bob Dole edged out Bill Clinton in Fairfax County, and in 2000 George W. Bush beat Al Gore there. By 2008, however, Mr. Obama carried Fairfax County with slightly more than 60 percent of the vote.
Prince William County, southwest of Fairfax, has grown to more than 400,000 residents, and one-fifth of them are African-American and one-fifth Hispanic.
The Richmond area is more politically competitive, Mr. Palazzolo said. The city of Richmond is heavily African-American and Democratic-leaning, but suburban Chesterfield County to the south is Republican territory. Henrico County — which wraps around Richmond — is a tossup. There are state government employees who lean left, and more socially conservative voters who lean right. The eastern end of Henrico County is blue-collar, while the western end looks more like Northern Virginia, affluent and highly-educated.
The Hampton Roads region, along the coast in southest Virginia, is also competitive. There are significant African-American communities in Norfolk and Hampton. But Hampton Roads is also home to a number of military installations, including Marine, Army and Air Force installations as well as the largest naval base in the world, Norfolk Naval Station. Virginia Beach, home to many active and retired military personnel, skews Republican.
Western Virginia is sparsely populated, more rural and economically depressed. It is also ruby red. The gains Democrats have made in Virginia, with a few exceptions, have been in the east.
“If anything,” Mr. Skelley said, “the western, rural part of the state has become more Republican.”
The Bellwether: Montgomery County
Montgomery County has been an almost perfect barometer of Virginia’s statewide political orientation. Virginia Tech, in Blacksburg, is Montgomery County’s stand-in for left-leaning Northern Virginia, while the area around the university is more Old Virginia, Mr. Skelley said.
In the past three presidential elections, Montgomery County has never been more than one percentage point off of the statewide vote shares of the two parties.
The Bottom Line
Mr. Obama is a 71 percent favorite in Virginia, according to the current FiveThirtyEight forecast. The model projects Virginia to be one of the closest states, with Mr. Obama prevailing by 1.5 percentage points. If Mr. Romney over-performs his polling even slightly on Election Day, Virginia’s 13 electoral votes will end up in the Republican column.
Mr. Obama carried Virginia in 2008 by far exceeding John Kerry’s 2004 vote totals in Hampton Roads, the Richmond area and especially in the Washington suburbs.
Virginia “has moved further left since 2008,” Mr. Palazzolo said, “but Romney is more acceptable to moderate Republicans. The McCain and Palin ticket didn’t sell very well with moderate Republican-leaners in Northern Virginia.”
Suburban communities, particularly in Northern Virginia, are likely to decide who carries the state again this year. Prince William, Loudoun, and Henrico Counties may prove decisive, Mr. Skelley said. All are densely populated, and all were won by Mr. Bush in 2004 and by Mr. Obama 2008.
“The candidates who can win the suburbs have always won,” Mr. Skelley said. “In recent years, the suburbs have become more liberal, which has made it easier for Democrats.”
The New York Times and Micah Cohen have been taking a state by state look at each state throughout the the weeks leading up to Election Day. Next up is Virginia.
Virginia:
Polling of the presidential race in Virginia has been particularly volatile. Since the beginning of October, polls at various points have shown both a seven-point lead for Mitt Romney and a seven-point lead for President Obama.
The political landscape in Virginia has shifted dramatically in recent years, and the disagreement among the polls is essentially a disagreement about which Virginia will dominate on Election Day: the reliably Republican “Old Virginia,” which is more religious, rural, working-class and white, or the politically competitive “New Virginia,” which is more secular, urban, diverse and white-collar.
In 2008, New Virginia made its debut at the presidential level, with Mr. Obama becoming the first Democrat to carry the state since 1964. He won by six percentage points.
But in the following two years, Old Virginia has roared back. Turnout in nonpresidential elections tends to be substantially more favorable to Republican candidates. Bob McDonnell, a Republican, won the governor’s race in 2009, and the party picked up three House seats in 2010. Republicans now represent 8 of Virginia’s 11 Congressional districts.
Political analysts often group Virginia and North Carolina together as the “New South.” Both states — reliably red for years — turned blue in 2008, pushed toward the political center by highly-educated white-collar voters who have moved there and by fast-growing Hispanic populations.
But while similar demographic trends have been reshaping both states’ politics, the changes have been more apparent in Virginia. Mr. Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina was razor thin. In Virginia, however, Mr. Obama’s margin of victory matched his margin nationwide almost exactly.
Virginia’s political balance has shifted far enough left that it is now very close to a tipping point. In fact, it has the smallest Republican lean, 1.9 percentage points, of any state in FiveThirtyEight’s Presidential Voting Index. North Carolina, by contrast, is almost eight percentage points to the right of the national average.
As Mr. Romney’s polling improved nationally after the first presidential debate, North Carolina appeared to fall off the list of main battleground states. Mr. Romney is currently a 79 percent favorite to carry North Carolina, according to the FiveThirtyEight forecast. In Virginia, Mr. Obama is still favored.
Democrats there have an advantage that Democrats in North Carolina do not: The explosive growth of suburban Washington.
In 1970, Northern Virginia accounted for 12 percent of the state’s population, according to the Almanac of American Politics, and 61 percent of Virginians lived in small towns and rural communities.
But in the 2010 census, one-third of Virginia residents lived in Northern Virginia. The Richmond area and the Hampton Roads region have grown too, and more than half of the state’s residents live in urban areas.
Northern Virginia now has a much greater influence in statewide elections. As the Washington suburbs have expanded, Northern Virginia has become more diverse and better educated. It is home to thousands of government workers and contractors, including many employed by defense and high-tech companies.
Northern Virginia has also become more affluent. The top 3 richest counties in the nation by median income (and 5 of the top 10) are all in the Virginia portion of suburban Washington. Loudoun County is No. 1, followed by Fairfax and Arlington Counties.
Fairfax County — the most populous in the state, with more than a million residents — has been ground zero for the demographic change, Mr. Skelley said. In 1996, Bob Dole edged out Bill Clinton in Fairfax County, and in 2000 George W. Bush beat Al Gore there. By 2008, however, Mr. Obama carried Fairfax County with slightly more than 60 percent of the vote.
Prince William County, southwest of Fairfax, has grown to more than 400,000 residents, and one-fifth of them are African-American and one-fifth Hispanic.
The Richmond area is more politically competitive, Mr. Palazzolo said. The city of Richmond is heavily African-American and Democratic-leaning, but suburban Chesterfield County to the south is Republican territory. Henrico County — which wraps around Richmond — is a tossup. There are state government employees who lean left, and more socially conservative voters who lean right. The eastern end of Henrico County is blue-collar, while the western end looks more like Northern Virginia, affluent and highly-educated.
The Hampton Roads region, along the coast in southest Virginia, is also competitive. There are significant African-American communities in Norfolk and Hampton. But Hampton Roads is also home to a number of military installations, including Marine, Army and Air Force installations as well as the largest naval base in the world, Norfolk Naval Station. Virginia Beach, home to many active and retired military personnel, skews Republican.
Western Virginia is sparsely populated, more rural and economically depressed. It is also ruby red. The gains Democrats have made in Virginia, with a few exceptions, have been in the east.
“If anything,” Mr. Skelley said, “the western, rural part of the state has become more Republican.”
The Bellwether: Montgomery County
Montgomery County has been an almost perfect barometer of Virginia’s statewide political orientation. Virginia Tech, in Blacksburg, is Montgomery County’s stand-in for left-leaning Northern Virginia, while the area around the university is more Old Virginia, Mr. Skelley said.
In the past three presidential elections, Montgomery County has never been more than one percentage point off of the statewide vote shares of the two parties.
The Bottom Line
Mr. Obama is a 71 percent favorite in Virginia, according to the current FiveThirtyEight forecast. The model projects Virginia to be one of the closest states, with Mr. Obama prevailing by 1.5 percentage points. If Mr. Romney over-performs his polling even slightly on Election Day, Virginia’s 13 electoral votes will end up in the Republican column.
Mr. Obama carried Virginia in 2008 by far exceeding John Kerry’s 2004 vote totals in Hampton Roads, the Richmond area and especially in the Washington suburbs.
Virginia “has moved further left since 2008,” Mr. Palazzolo said, “but Romney is more acceptable to moderate Republicans. The McCain and Palin ticket didn’t sell very well with moderate Republican-leaners in Northern Virginia.”
Suburban communities, particularly in Northern Virginia, are likely to decide who carries the state again this year. Prince William, Loudoun, and Henrico Counties may prove decisive, Mr. Skelley said. All are densely populated, and all were won by Mr. Bush in 2004 and by Mr. Obama 2008.
“The candidates who can win the suburbs have always won,” Mr. Skelley said. “In recent years, the suburbs have become more liberal, which has made it easier for Democrats.”
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Presidential Geography: Nevada
The 2012 presidential election is a few days away and there is still time for ads, debates, campaign stops, and polls. While the race will likely come down to about a dozen states, each state truly does play some role and even safe states for either party are needed to guarantee victory in November.
The New York Times and Micah Cohen have been taking a state by state look at each state throughout the the weeks leading up to Election Day. Next up is Nevada.
Nevada:
With less than a week until Election Day, Nevada’s six electoral votes remain pivotal. After three days of campaigning were canceled so he could oversee the federal response to Hurricane Sandy, President Obama returned to the trail Thursday, including a stop in North Las Vegas in the afternoon. That was about the same time that Representative Paul D. Ryan spoke in Reno, Nev.
Nevada should be one of the more promising battleground states for the campaign of Mitt Romney and Mr. Ryan. The state’s economy is in disrepair. Its unemployment rate, 11.8 percent, is the worst in the nation, and personal bankruptcies and foreclosures have ravaged the state.
In addition, although their effect can be overstated, Mormons make up 9 percent of Nevada’s population, tied for the third-largest share of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Mormon voters are expected to overwhelmingly support Mr. Romney, a Mormon himself.
Yet, just a single poll all year has found Mr. Romney leading Mr. Obama in Nevada. The race appears close, but polls show Mr. Obama retaining a consistent, if narrow, lead of 3.4 percentage points. And Nevada remains one of the more solid bricks in Mr. Obama’s Electoral College “firewall.”
How has Mr. Obama’s support in Nevada weathered the state’s struggling economy? Or, as Mr. Ralston put it, “How in the world is the president not getting crushed here?”
Nevada was once reliably red, favoring the Republican candidate relative to the national popular vote in every presidential election but one — 1960 — from 1948 through 2004. The Silver State’s rightward bent began to dissipate in the 1990s and 2000s. Bill Clinton, a Democrat, carried Nevada in 1992 and 1996, although he was helped by the independent candidacy of Ross Perot, Mr. Damore said.
In 2004, Nevada was almost exactly at the national tipping point, only 0.13 percentage points more Republican-leaning than the nation. Then in 2008, Nevada made the switch. Mr. Obama won nationally by seven percentage points, and he carried the state by 12.5 points. For the first time since 1960, Nevada was more Democratic-leaning than the country.
In 2010, Nevada showed signs that 2008 was not an anomaly. Harry Reid, the Senator majority leader who was battling a Republican wave nationally and poor approval ratings locally, upset expectations (and the polls) to defeat the Republican Sharron Angle in Nevada’s Senate race.
Nevada’s leftward tilt is unlikely to be as strong in 2012 as it was in 2008, according to the FiveThirtyEight forecast. But the fact that Mr. Obama is favored at all is evidence of how thoroughly Nevada’s political landscape has been remade by the state’s fast-growing minority populations.
Nevada led the nation in population growth for the past two decades, more than doubling in size to 2.7 million, from 1.2 million in 1990. Fueling that growth has been Democratic-leaning demographic groups: Hispanics, Asians and African-Americans. While Nevada’s non-Hispanic white population grew by 12 percent from 2000 to 2010, African-Americans grew by 58 percent, Asians by 116 percent and Hispanics by 82 percent.
Non-Hispanic whites are still a majority in Nevada, but barely, comprising 54 percent of the state. Hispanics are 27 percent, African-Americans are almost 9 percent, and Asians are about 8 percent.
The state’s booming population has also made Nevada more urban, as the growth has been focused primarily in and around Las Vegas and Reno. Nevada is now the third most urban state in terms of population, according to the 2010 census.
Rural Nevada — which has not seen the population boom that Las Vegas and Reno have — is still overwhelmingly Republican. But it accounts for only about 15 percent of the state population, Mr. Damore said.
Clark County, where Las Vegas is located, is home to more than 70 percent of Nevadans. It is a majority minority county and a Democratic stronghold. The core of Las Vegas is the most left-leaning and predominantly Hispanic and African-American. The Las Vegas suburbs are more politically competitive, similar to suburban communities in Colorado or Virginia, Mr. Damore said.
Democratic candidates in statewide races can count on carrying Clark County, but they want to win it by a wide margin to cancel out the G.O.P.’s advantage in rural Nevada, Mr. Ralston said. The vote in Washoe County, then, often decides the winner.
The Bellwether: Washoe County
Democrats have made substantial gains in Washoe County, home to Reno. “Washoe County was traditionally a strong Republican base,” Mr. Damore said, “but over time it has become much more of a swing district.”
In the 2000 presidential election, Washoe County was three percentage points more Republican-leaning than Nevada as a whole. In 2004, it was one point more Republican, and in 2008 Mr. Obama carried Washoe County by just over 12 percentage points, matching the statewide vote almost exactly.
To carry Nevada, Mr. Ralston said, Mr. Romney will almost certainly have to carry Washoe County. Mr. Obama needs only to keep it close there, as long as he performs strongly in Clark County.
The Bottom Line
Mr. Obama is an 80 percent favorite in Nevada, according to the current FiveThirtyEight forecast. Mr. Romney could still win the state, but mostly in situations where he had already reached 270 electoral votes.
Nevada’s growing diversity has made the state more politically competitive, but it does not tell the whole story. Arizona is almost a third Hispanic, but it is still reliably Republican. In Nevada, the fast-growing minority communities have been harnessed by top-notch turnout operations built by Mr. Reid and the 55,0000-member Culinary Union.
“The Hispanic population began to swell especially in the Culinary Union,” Mr. Ralston said, “and they became more and more active as voters, mostly on the Democratic side.”
In contrast, the Nevada Republican Party is disorganized, Mr. Ralston said, and the Romney campaign and the Republican National Committee have had to build an infrastructure from scratch. They have done a decent job, Mr. Ralston said, “But you can’t grow organically in a few months what Reid and company have built in a few election cycles.”
Democrats have amassed a voter registration advantage of 130,000, and early voting in Nevada has so far favored the Democrats, according to an analysis by Mr.Ralston.
At the same time, the state is led by a popular Republican, Gov. Brian Sandoval, who may provide a model for Republican success in the state, Mr. Ralston said.
Mr. Sandoval has claimed the political center, angering the conservative base over taxes and social issues, Mr. Damore said. (Mr. Sandoval has also angered Republicans who feel he has not campaigned enough for Mr. Romney.)
The gains Democrats have made in Nevada appear to be just strong enough to counteract the bad economy and Mr. Romney’s advantage among Mormons. Republicans generally and Mr. Romney specifically can still succeed in the Silver State — as Mr. Sandoval proves — but it’s tougher than it used to be.
The New York Times and Micah Cohen have been taking a state by state look at each state throughout the the weeks leading up to Election Day. Next up is Nevada.
Nevada:
With less than a week until Election Day, Nevada’s six electoral votes remain pivotal. After three days of campaigning were canceled so he could oversee the federal response to Hurricane Sandy, President Obama returned to the trail Thursday, including a stop in North Las Vegas in the afternoon. That was about the same time that Representative Paul D. Ryan spoke in Reno, Nev.
Nevada should be one of the more promising battleground states for the campaign of Mitt Romney and Mr. Ryan. The state’s economy is in disrepair. Its unemployment rate, 11.8 percent, is the worst in the nation, and personal bankruptcies and foreclosures have ravaged the state.
In addition, although their effect can be overstated, Mormons make up 9 percent of Nevada’s population, tied for the third-largest share of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Mormon voters are expected to overwhelmingly support Mr. Romney, a Mormon himself.
Yet, just a single poll all year has found Mr. Romney leading Mr. Obama in Nevada. The race appears close, but polls show Mr. Obama retaining a consistent, if narrow, lead of 3.4 percentage points. And Nevada remains one of the more solid bricks in Mr. Obama’s Electoral College “firewall.”
How has Mr. Obama’s support in Nevada weathered the state’s struggling economy? Or, as Mr. Ralston put it, “How in the world is the president not getting crushed here?”
Nevada was once reliably red, favoring the Republican candidate relative to the national popular vote in every presidential election but one — 1960 — from 1948 through 2004. The Silver State’s rightward bent began to dissipate in the 1990s and 2000s. Bill Clinton, a Democrat, carried Nevada in 1992 and 1996, although he was helped by the independent candidacy of Ross Perot, Mr. Damore said.
In 2004, Nevada was almost exactly at the national tipping point, only 0.13 percentage points more Republican-leaning than the nation. Then in 2008, Nevada made the switch. Mr. Obama won nationally by seven percentage points, and he carried the state by 12.5 points. For the first time since 1960, Nevada was more Democratic-leaning than the country.
In 2010, Nevada showed signs that 2008 was not an anomaly. Harry Reid, the Senator majority leader who was battling a Republican wave nationally and poor approval ratings locally, upset expectations (and the polls) to defeat the Republican Sharron Angle in Nevada’s Senate race.
Nevada’s leftward tilt is unlikely to be as strong in 2012 as it was in 2008, according to the FiveThirtyEight forecast. But the fact that Mr. Obama is favored at all is evidence of how thoroughly Nevada’s political landscape has been remade by the state’s fast-growing minority populations.
Nevada led the nation in population growth for the past two decades, more than doubling in size to 2.7 million, from 1.2 million in 1990. Fueling that growth has been Democratic-leaning demographic groups: Hispanics, Asians and African-Americans. While Nevada’s non-Hispanic white population grew by 12 percent from 2000 to 2010, African-Americans grew by 58 percent, Asians by 116 percent and Hispanics by 82 percent.
Non-Hispanic whites are still a majority in Nevada, but barely, comprising 54 percent of the state. Hispanics are 27 percent, African-Americans are almost 9 percent, and Asians are about 8 percent.
The state’s booming population has also made Nevada more urban, as the growth has been focused primarily in and around Las Vegas and Reno. Nevada is now the third most urban state in terms of population, according to the 2010 census.
Rural Nevada — which has not seen the population boom that Las Vegas and Reno have — is still overwhelmingly Republican. But it accounts for only about 15 percent of the state population, Mr. Damore said.
Clark County, where Las Vegas is located, is home to more than 70 percent of Nevadans. It is a majority minority county and a Democratic stronghold. The core of Las Vegas is the most left-leaning and predominantly Hispanic and African-American. The Las Vegas suburbs are more politically competitive, similar to suburban communities in Colorado or Virginia, Mr. Damore said.
Democratic candidates in statewide races can count on carrying Clark County, but they want to win it by a wide margin to cancel out the G.O.P.’s advantage in rural Nevada, Mr. Ralston said. The vote in Washoe County, then, often decides the winner.
The Bellwether: Washoe County
Democrats have made substantial gains in Washoe County, home to Reno. “Washoe County was traditionally a strong Republican base,” Mr. Damore said, “but over time it has become much more of a swing district.”
In the 2000 presidential election, Washoe County was three percentage points more Republican-leaning than Nevada as a whole. In 2004, it was one point more Republican, and in 2008 Mr. Obama carried Washoe County by just over 12 percentage points, matching the statewide vote almost exactly.
To carry Nevada, Mr. Ralston said, Mr. Romney will almost certainly have to carry Washoe County. Mr. Obama needs only to keep it close there, as long as he performs strongly in Clark County.
The Bottom Line
Mr. Obama is an 80 percent favorite in Nevada, according to the current FiveThirtyEight forecast. Mr. Romney could still win the state, but mostly in situations where he had already reached 270 electoral votes.
Nevada’s growing diversity has made the state more politically competitive, but it does not tell the whole story. Arizona is almost a third Hispanic, but it is still reliably Republican. In Nevada, the fast-growing minority communities have been harnessed by top-notch turnout operations built by Mr. Reid and the 55,0000-member Culinary Union.
“The Hispanic population began to swell especially in the Culinary Union,” Mr. Ralston said, “and they became more and more active as voters, mostly on the Democratic side.”
In contrast, the Nevada Republican Party is disorganized, Mr. Ralston said, and the Romney campaign and the Republican National Committee have had to build an infrastructure from scratch. They have done a decent job, Mr. Ralston said, “But you can’t grow organically in a few months what Reid and company have built in a few election cycles.”
Democrats have amassed a voter registration advantage of 130,000, and early voting in Nevada has so far favored the Democrats, according to an analysis by Mr.Ralston.
At the same time, the state is led by a popular Republican, Gov. Brian Sandoval, who may provide a model for Republican success in the state, Mr. Ralston said.
Mr. Sandoval has claimed the political center, angering the conservative base over taxes and social issues, Mr. Damore said. (Mr. Sandoval has also angered Republicans who feel he has not campaigned enough for Mr. Romney.)
The gains Democrats have made in Nevada appear to be just strong enough to counteract the bad economy and Mr. Romney’s advantage among Mormons. Republicans generally and Mr. Romney specifically can still succeed in the Silver State — as Mr. Sandoval proves — but it’s tougher than it used to be.
10 U.S. House races to watch
As election day nears, there are multiple battles to watch. There is the presidential contest. There are races for the U.S. Senate. And there are races for the U.S. House. Each has its own storylines and interesting developments. The presidential race is beginning to look to close to call with days to go. While it looks like despite a potential for Republican pickups that would give them control of the U.S. Senate, polls are breaking in a way that presents a similar U.S. Senate likely to emerge by the morning of November 7th. The same can be said about the status quo nature of the U.S. House with control likely to stay in the hands of the current party in power, the Republicans. However, there are certainly several races on the House side that can become nail bitters and tight contests. The New York Times and Jennifer Steinhauer take a look at 10 races worth watching.
The list
California’s 15th District
History and tradition suggest that Representative Pete Stark, who has served nearly four decades, should cruise to re-election, and maybe indeed he will. But this race is on the radar screen because Mr. Stark, who has not faced a serious challenge in years, has been knocked off his game many times by competition — a situation illustrated by his announcement at California newspaper editorial board meeting, absent any proof, that some of its members had donated to his primary opponent. No Republican qualified in the California primary for this race, so Mr. Stark, 81, will have to beat back a Dublin City Council member, Eric Swalwell, a perky 31-year-old prosecutor with the stomach for a fight.
California’s 36th District
For eight terms, Representative Mary Bono Mack, the Republican incumbent, has won in this largely blue state, and redistricting seemed to favor another good outcome for her. But she found herself in a scrappy fight against the Democrat, Dr. Raul Ruiz, an emergency room physician. Latinos make up nearly a third of the district’s voters, and Ms. Bono Mack, one of the most moderate Republicans in the House may have boo-booed when she said on the campaign trail that she would reach out to Latinos “after the election.” Twist: If she loses, and her husband, Representative Connie Mack of Florida,fails in his Senate bid, they will be a married Congressional couple out of work.
Colorado’s 6th District
As goes this district, so likely goes the presidential candidate in this western bellwether state. Representative Mike Coffman, a favorite of the Tea Party movement, is known for his colorful statements, including calling into question President Obama’s American-ness, and his path to a third term narrowed after political mapmakers redrew his overwhelmingly Republican district to include near-equal amounts of registered Republican, Democratic and independent voters. His Democratic rival, Joe Miklosi, a state lawmaker, has struggled to raise money for his own campaign and has had to rely on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to keep afloat.
Florida’s 18th District
Representative Allen B. West is one of the few nationally known freshmen Republicans, a former Army officer who in 2010 became one of only two black Republicans to be elected to the House since Reconstruction. A Tea Party favorite who works the talk-show circuit and is a fund-raising powerhouse, he is in a too-close-to-call contest with a wealthy construction executive, Patrick Murphy, and Democrats would love to see Mr. West go. This race has also featured some of the nastiest ads, in a year with a high bar for that.
Illinois’s 17th District
Among the many lawmakers who came to Washington with no political experience, Representative Bobby Schilling was among the most unlikely. The affable pizzeria-owning father of 10 won in a district near the Iowa border that had not elected a Republican in nearly 30 years, and Illinois Democrats drew him into an even tougher district this year, making him one of the most vulnerable incumbents. But his opponent Cheri Bustos, a former East Moline alderwoman and close ally of Senator Richard J. Durbin, has had to work hard to fight Mr. Schilling, who has tried to charm the working-class voters in this district. The race has remained a nail-biter, though Democrats think this one is in the bag.
Iowa’s 3rd District
This race was the war of the nice guys. Iowa lost a seat after the 2010 census, and two veteran incumbents — Representatives Leonard L. Boswell, a Democrat, and Tom Latham, a Republican — found themselves facing off in a new district made up of a nearly equal number of Republican, Democratic and independent voters. The cash advantage went to Mr. Latham, who got a ton of fund-raising help from his B.F.F., House speaker, John A. Boehner. But more of the district is currently held by Mr. Boswell, and Mr. Obama enjoys a narrow edge in the state.
Georgia’s 12th District
The last white Democrat laboring in the deep South, Representative John Barrow has hung on through every attack that Republicans have launched over the course of four terms. This year, he is forced to compete in an even more Republican district, and has worked to emphasize his Blue Dog status and his “I vote my district not with the president” cred. His opponent is Lee Anderson, a state representative who nabbed the Republican nomination by a mere 159 votes in a primary runoff, and Mr. Barrow has given as hard as he has gotten in this close race.
Massachusetts’s 6th District
So, an openly gay Republican member of the House from Massachusetts? Get ready, as it could happen. Representative John F. Tierney, an eight-term Democrat, should have cruised to re-elected, but he has been dogged with nagging questions about his in-laws’ illegal offshore gambling enterprise. His opponent is the former state senator Richard Tisei, an openly gay Republican who supports abortion rights, and polling shows Mr. Tisei heading into the last month of his campaign with a strong lead.
New York’s 27th District
There are many close races in New York, and a few involving freshmen, but the first-term incumbent, Representative Kathy Hochul, is considered among the most vulnerable Democrats in the country. Ms. Hochul, a former county clerk, won her seat in a closely watched special election in a conservative district in the Buffalo area last year in a race that was viewed nationally as a referendum on a Republican proposal in Washington to overhaul Medicare. This year, redistricting has given her an even more Republican district than the one she had and her well-known Republican opponent, Chris Collins, the former Erie County executive, has gotten a lot of help from his party.
Utah’s 4th District
Representative Jim Matheson, one of the last remaining Blue Dogs, is used to winning in a district and state where the Republican nominee for president always prevails. But this time, Mr. Matheson is in a battle against Mayor Mia Love of Saratoga Springs, who is looking to become the first black woman ever to join the House of Representatives as a Republican. Ms. Love is sure to have big coattails from Mitt Romney to ride, and her party is giving her strong support, but incumbency is not without its benefits, even in this district.
The list
California’s 15th District
History and tradition suggest that Representative Pete Stark, who has served nearly four decades, should cruise to re-election, and maybe indeed he will. But this race is on the radar screen because Mr. Stark, who has not faced a serious challenge in years, has been knocked off his game many times by competition — a situation illustrated by his announcement at California newspaper editorial board meeting, absent any proof, that some of its members had donated to his primary opponent. No Republican qualified in the California primary for this race, so Mr. Stark, 81, will have to beat back a Dublin City Council member, Eric Swalwell, a perky 31-year-old prosecutor with the stomach for a fight.
California’s 36th District
For eight terms, Representative Mary Bono Mack, the Republican incumbent, has won in this largely blue state, and redistricting seemed to favor another good outcome for her. But she found herself in a scrappy fight against the Democrat, Dr. Raul Ruiz, an emergency room physician. Latinos make up nearly a third of the district’s voters, and Ms. Bono Mack, one of the most moderate Republicans in the House may have boo-booed when she said on the campaign trail that she would reach out to Latinos “after the election.” Twist: If she loses, and her husband, Representative Connie Mack of Florida,fails in his Senate bid, they will be a married Congressional couple out of work.
Colorado’s 6th District
As goes this district, so likely goes the presidential candidate in this western bellwether state. Representative Mike Coffman, a favorite of the Tea Party movement, is known for his colorful statements, including calling into question President Obama’s American-ness, and his path to a third term narrowed after political mapmakers redrew his overwhelmingly Republican district to include near-equal amounts of registered Republican, Democratic and independent voters. His Democratic rival, Joe Miklosi, a state lawmaker, has struggled to raise money for his own campaign and has had to rely on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to keep afloat.
Florida’s 18th District
Representative Allen B. West is one of the few nationally known freshmen Republicans, a former Army officer who in 2010 became one of only two black Republicans to be elected to the House since Reconstruction. A Tea Party favorite who works the talk-show circuit and is a fund-raising powerhouse, he is in a too-close-to-call contest with a wealthy construction executive, Patrick Murphy, and Democrats would love to see Mr. West go. This race has also featured some of the nastiest ads, in a year with a high bar for that.
Illinois’s 17th District
Among the many lawmakers who came to Washington with no political experience, Representative Bobby Schilling was among the most unlikely. The affable pizzeria-owning father of 10 won in a district near the Iowa border that had not elected a Republican in nearly 30 years, and Illinois Democrats drew him into an even tougher district this year, making him one of the most vulnerable incumbents. But his opponent Cheri Bustos, a former East Moline alderwoman and close ally of Senator Richard J. Durbin, has had to work hard to fight Mr. Schilling, who has tried to charm the working-class voters in this district. The race has remained a nail-biter, though Democrats think this one is in the bag.
Iowa’s 3rd District
This race was the war of the nice guys. Iowa lost a seat after the 2010 census, and two veteran incumbents — Representatives Leonard L. Boswell, a Democrat, and Tom Latham, a Republican — found themselves facing off in a new district made up of a nearly equal number of Republican, Democratic and independent voters. The cash advantage went to Mr. Latham, who got a ton of fund-raising help from his B.F.F., House speaker, John A. Boehner. But more of the district is currently held by Mr. Boswell, and Mr. Obama enjoys a narrow edge in the state.
Georgia’s 12th District
The last white Democrat laboring in the deep South, Representative John Barrow has hung on through every attack that Republicans have launched over the course of four terms. This year, he is forced to compete in an even more Republican district, and has worked to emphasize his Blue Dog status and his “I vote my district not with the president” cred. His opponent is Lee Anderson, a state representative who nabbed the Republican nomination by a mere 159 votes in a primary runoff, and Mr. Barrow has given as hard as he has gotten in this close race.
Massachusetts’s 6th District
So, an openly gay Republican member of the House from Massachusetts? Get ready, as it could happen. Representative John F. Tierney, an eight-term Democrat, should have cruised to re-elected, but he has been dogged with nagging questions about his in-laws’ illegal offshore gambling enterprise. His opponent is the former state senator Richard Tisei, an openly gay Republican who supports abortion rights, and polling shows Mr. Tisei heading into the last month of his campaign with a strong lead.
New York’s 27th District
There are many close races in New York, and a few involving freshmen, but the first-term incumbent, Representative Kathy Hochul, is considered among the most vulnerable Democrats in the country. Ms. Hochul, a former county clerk, won her seat in a closely watched special election in a conservative district in the Buffalo area last year in a race that was viewed nationally as a referendum on a Republican proposal in Washington to overhaul Medicare. This year, redistricting has given her an even more Republican district than the one she had and her well-known Republican opponent, Chris Collins, the former Erie County executive, has gotten a lot of help from his party.
Utah’s 4th District
Representative Jim Matheson, one of the last remaining Blue Dogs, is used to winning in a district and state where the Republican nominee for president always prevails. But this time, Mr. Matheson is in a battle against Mayor Mia Love of Saratoga Springs, who is looking to become the first black woman ever to join the House of Representatives as a Republican. Ms. Love is sure to have big coattails from Mitt Romney to ride, and her party is giving her strong support, but incumbency is not without its benefits, even in this district.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Presidential Geography: Pennsylvania
The 2012 presidential election is a few days away and there is still time for ads, debates, campaign stops, and polls. While the race will likely come down to about a dozen states, each state truly does play some role and even safe states for either party are needed to guarantee victory in November.
The New York Times and Micah Cohen have been taking a state by state look at each state throughout the the weeks leading up to Election Day. Next up is Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania:
New reports indicate that the 2012 presidential campaign is coming to Pennsylvania. After a spate of advertising during the summer, Pennsylvania — in a break from tradition — has largely avoided the volume of campaign commercials that states like Ohio and Virginia have seen.
But beginning Tuesday, Restore Our Future, a “super-PAC” supporting Mitt Romney, will blanket Pennsylvania with about $2 million worth of advertisements. President Obama’s advisers greeted that news on Monday by saying that the Obama campaign would also spend advertising money in the Keystone State between now and Election Day.
Pennsylvania has been a swing state in presidential elections since the 1950s. In the last 60 years, the candidate who carried the state has also won the national popular vote in every election but two. Over that time, Republicans have carried Pennsylvania in six elections, and Democrats have carried it in nine.
But while Pennsylvania has swung between the two parties, its relative partisan bent has remained remarkably consistent: slightly Democratic.
In fact, Pennsylvania is the only state in the nation that has been unfailingly Democratic-leaning relative to the national popular vote in every presidential election since 1950. With the exceptions of the landslide elections in 1964 and 1984, however, Pennsylvania’s leftward lean has been fairly narrow, between one and five percentage points. The fact that Pennsylvania is just slightly left-leaning and worth 20 electoral votes, tied for the fifth largest haul with Illinois, makes the state an attractive target for Republicans. Pennsylvania is not necessary for Mitt Romney to reach 270 electoral votes, but it would provide him with more flexibility,allowing him to lose two of the three smallest battleground states — New Hampshire, Nevada and Iowa — if he carried North Carolina, Florida and Virginia.
In addition, Pennsylvania has a lot of white, working-class voters who have never been especially enamored with President Obama (Hillary Clinton bested him by 10 percentage points in Pennsylvania’s 2008 Democratic primary). Pennsylvania is also relatively old, with the fourth largest share of residents 65 years and older. The Republicans took the state’s governor’s mansion and a United States Senate seat in 2010.
But Pennsylvania may be fool’s gold for the Romney campaign. The state is relatively inelastic; it has few true swing voters, and turnout tends to be the final deciding factor. In other words, the state’s Democratic-lean isn’t severe, but it is hard to reverse. Yes, Republicans have carried the state six times in the last 15 presidential contests. But in each of those wins the Republican won nationally by at least seven percentage points, a margin that is unlikely this year no matter who wins.
It has also become slightly harder for Republican presidential candidates to put together a winning map in Pennsylvania. The last time a Republican carried the state was in 1988, when President George H. W. Bush defeated Michael Dukakis. Mr. Bush carried the Philadelphia suburbs — Bucks, Chester, Delaware and Montgomery Counties — which have often been the pivotal swing vote.
“The Republicans won elections here in the 1980s because they were winning the Philadelphia suburbs,” Mr. Madonna said.
In contrast, the last time Pennsylvania was carried by a candidate who failed to win the national popular vote was in 2004. President George W. Bush won re-election by 2.5 percentage points but lost the Keystone State by 2.5 percentage points. Mr. Bush lost the all-important Philadelphia suburbs.
Those suburbs have become less-hospitable to Republican presidential candidates. Bucks and Chester Counties are still competitive, but Delaware and Montgomery Counties are reliably left-leaning in presidential elections.
Much of the eastern wing of the state has become more Democratic-leaning, but this has been counterbalanced somewhat by a trend toward the Republicans in western Pennsylvania.
In 1992, the campaign strategist for Bill Clinton, James Carville, described Pennsylvania as Philadelphia in the east, Pittsburgh in the west and Alabama between the two cities (that’s not the exact quote, but it conveys the sentiment).
There was an element of truth to Mr. Carville’s assessment at the time; the state was bookended by two urban pockets and the rest of Pennsylvania was more rural. But in the 20 years since Mr. Carville made the statement, the state’s political landscape has shifted considerably.
Now, a better breakdown of the state is between east and west. Most of central Pennsylvania is still rural, but the eastern third of the state has become Democratic-leaning and culturally and politically Northeastern. Western Pennsylvania has a more Midwest feel and has trended toward the Republican Party.
The regional difference is evident in the state’s two biggest cities. Philadelphia is heavily African-American and overwhelmingly Democratic. Pittsburgh is less diverse, more blue-collar and less overwhelmingly Democratic. The Republican candidate for governor, Tom Corbett, carried Pittsburgh’s Allegheny County in 2010.
The difference is also apparent in the suburbs and smaller cities. The Northeast corridor — stretching from Philadelphia’s suburbs in the south up through the Lehigh Valley and into Scranton’s Lackawanna County — has become more left-leaning over the past two decades. Part of the shift toward the Democratic Party, particularly in the Philadelphia suburbs, has been driven by women, as the Republican Party became increasingly associated with social issues like opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage. The realignment occurred throughout the Northeast and New England.
The northern part of the Northeast Corridor, in Lehigh Valley and Scranton, is more blue-collar and less left-leaning than the Philadelphia suburbs. But white college graduates and minorities — groups that skew Democratic — have increased as a share of eligible voters in the Philadelphia suburbs, the Lehigh Valley and the Harrisburg-York-Lancaster region in south-central Pennsylvania.
The south-central region, specifically York and Lancaster Counties, is the beginning of Republican territory. There’s a large Amish vote in Lancaster County, and the region tends to be more socially conservative, Mr. Meredith said.
Western Pennsylvania is culturally Midwestern, more socially conservative, and has moved towardthe Republican Party. Politically, it looks like Ohio, with a solidly but not overwhelmingly Democratic city, Pittsburgh, surrounded by heavily Republican suburbs in Westmoreland and Butler Counties.
Over all, the state’s leftward lean has increased just barely because as parts of the Philadelphia suburbs moved left, the old mining and mill towns in southwestern Pennsylvania moved right. The southwest corner of the state was historically Reagan Democrat territory, Mr. Madonna said, and has become more Republican-leaning in recent years.
The Bellwether: Bucks County
Bucks County is very likely to provide an early clue as to how Pennsylvania will vote. It has been an almost perfect bellwether, just one percentage point more Democratic-leaning than the state in 2008 and exactly matching the statewide vote in 2004 and 2000.
Southern Bucks County, around Levittown and Bensalem, is solidly Democratic. To the northwest, Bucks County becomes more politically competitive in suburban communities like Yardley (where this intrepid FiveThirtyEight writer happened to grow up) and Newtown. Northern Bucks County, around Quakertown, is more Republican-leaning.
The Bottom Line
Mr. Obama is a 94 percent favorite in Pennsylvania, according to the current FiveThirtyEight forecast. The state is hard to move independent of a shift in the national political environment and is unlikely to vote Republican in an election that is so close nationally.
The new Restore Our Future ad buy notwithstanding, the Romney campaign has not seriously contested Pennsylvania, a state that is hard to move without an all-out effort. In the last 30 days, Ann Romney, Mr. Romney’s wife, campaigned once in Pittsburgh, and Mr. Romney visited Philadelphia for a fund-raiser.
The state’s partisan makeup has changed just slightly since 2008. The Democratic voter registration advantage in Pennsylvania doubled to a little over a million in the run-up to the 2008 election, Mr. Madonna said.
“Since 2008,” Mr. Madonna added, “the voter registration numbers have remained remarkably consistent.”
If Mr. Romney wins nationally by three or more percentage points, Pennsylvania could come along also. But in a closer contest, the Keystone State is likely to remain blue for Mr. Obama.
The New York Times and Micah Cohen have been taking a state by state look at each state throughout the the weeks leading up to Election Day. Next up is Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania:
New reports indicate that the 2012 presidential campaign is coming to Pennsylvania. After a spate of advertising during the summer, Pennsylvania — in a break from tradition — has largely avoided the volume of campaign commercials that states like Ohio and Virginia have seen.
But beginning Tuesday, Restore Our Future, a “super-PAC” supporting Mitt Romney, will blanket Pennsylvania with about $2 million worth of advertisements. President Obama’s advisers greeted that news on Monday by saying that the Obama campaign would also spend advertising money in the Keystone State between now and Election Day.
Pennsylvania has been a swing state in presidential elections since the 1950s. In the last 60 years, the candidate who carried the state has also won the national popular vote in every election but two. Over that time, Republicans have carried Pennsylvania in six elections, and Democrats have carried it in nine.
But while Pennsylvania has swung between the two parties, its relative partisan bent has remained remarkably consistent: slightly Democratic.
In fact, Pennsylvania is the only state in the nation that has been unfailingly Democratic-leaning relative to the national popular vote in every presidential election since 1950. With the exceptions of the landslide elections in 1964 and 1984, however, Pennsylvania’s leftward lean has been fairly narrow, between one and five percentage points. The fact that Pennsylvania is just slightly left-leaning and worth 20 electoral votes, tied for the fifth largest haul with Illinois, makes the state an attractive target for Republicans. Pennsylvania is not necessary for Mitt Romney to reach 270 electoral votes, but it would provide him with more flexibility,allowing him to lose two of the three smallest battleground states — New Hampshire, Nevada and Iowa — if he carried North Carolina, Florida and Virginia.
In addition, Pennsylvania has a lot of white, working-class voters who have never been especially enamored with President Obama (Hillary Clinton bested him by 10 percentage points in Pennsylvania’s 2008 Democratic primary). Pennsylvania is also relatively old, with the fourth largest share of residents 65 years and older. The Republicans took the state’s governor’s mansion and a United States Senate seat in 2010.
But Pennsylvania may be fool’s gold for the Romney campaign. The state is relatively inelastic; it has few true swing voters, and turnout tends to be the final deciding factor. In other words, the state’s Democratic-lean isn’t severe, but it is hard to reverse. Yes, Republicans have carried the state six times in the last 15 presidential contests. But in each of those wins the Republican won nationally by at least seven percentage points, a margin that is unlikely this year no matter who wins.
It has also become slightly harder for Republican presidential candidates to put together a winning map in Pennsylvania. The last time a Republican carried the state was in 1988, when President George H. W. Bush defeated Michael Dukakis. Mr. Bush carried the Philadelphia suburbs — Bucks, Chester, Delaware and Montgomery Counties — which have often been the pivotal swing vote.
“The Republicans won elections here in the 1980s because they were winning the Philadelphia suburbs,” Mr. Madonna said.
In contrast, the last time Pennsylvania was carried by a candidate who failed to win the national popular vote was in 2004. President George W. Bush won re-election by 2.5 percentage points but lost the Keystone State by 2.5 percentage points. Mr. Bush lost the all-important Philadelphia suburbs.
Those suburbs have become less-hospitable to Republican presidential candidates. Bucks and Chester Counties are still competitive, but Delaware and Montgomery Counties are reliably left-leaning in presidential elections.
Much of the eastern wing of the state has become more Democratic-leaning, but this has been counterbalanced somewhat by a trend toward the Republicans in western Pennsylvania.
In 1992, the campaign strategist for Bill Clinton, James Carville, described Pennsylvania as Philadelphia in the east, Pittsburgh in the west and Alabama between the two cities (that’s not the exact quote, but it conveys the sentiment).
There was an element of truth to Mr. Carville’s assessment at the time; the state was bookended by two urban pockets and the rest of Pennsylvania was more rural. But in the 20 years since Mr. Carville made the statement, the state’s political landscape has shifted considerably.
Now, a better breakdown of the state is between east and west. Most of central Pennsylvania is still rural, but the eastern third of the state has become Democratic-leaning and culturally and politically Northeastern. Western Pennsylvania has a more Midwest feel and has trended toward the Republican Party.
The regional difference is evident in the state’s two biggest cities. Philadelphia is heavily African-American and overwhelmingly Democratic. Pittsburgh is less diverse, more blue-collar and less overwhelmingly Democratic. The Republican candidate for governor, Tom Corbett, carried Pittsburgh’s Allegheny County in 2010.
The difference is also apparent in the suburbs and smaller cities. The Northeast corridor — stretching from Philadelphia’s suburbs in the south up through the Lehigh Valley and into Scranton’s Lackawanna County — has become more left-leaning over the past two decades. Part of the shift toward the Democratic Party, particularly in the Philadelphia suburbs, has been driven by women, as the Republican Party became increasingly associated with social issues like opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage. The realignment occurred throughout the Northeast and New England.
The northern part of the Northeast Corridor, in Lehigh Valley and Scranton, is more blue-collar and less left-leaning than the Philadelphia suburbs. But white college graduates and minorities — groups that skew Democratic — have increased as a share of eligible voters in the Philadelphia suburbs, the Lehigh Valley and the Harrisburg-York-Lancaster region in south-central Pennsylvania.
The south-central region, specifically York and Lancaster Counties, is the beginning of Republican territory. There’s a large Amish vote in Lancaster County, and the region tends to be more socially conservative, Mr. Meredith said.
Western Pennsylvania is culturally Midwestern, more socially conservative, and has moved towardthe Republican Party. Politically, it looks like Ohio, with a solidly but not overwhelmingly Democratic city, Pittsburgh, surrounded by heavily Republican suburbs in Westmoreland and Butler Counties.
Over all, the state’s leftward lean has increased just barely because as parts of the Philadelphia suburbs moved left, the old mining and mill towns in southwestern Pennsylvania moved right. The southwest corner of the state was historically Reagan Democrat territory, Mr. Madonna said, and has become more Republican-leaning in recent years.
The Bellwether: Bucks County
Bucks County is very likely to provide an early clue as to how Pennsylvania will vote. It has been an almost perfect bellwether, just one percentage point more Democratic-leaning than the state in 2008 and exactly matching the statewide vote in 2004 and 2000.
Southern Bucks County, around Levittown and Bensalem, is solidly Democratic. To the northwest, Bucks County becomes more politically competitive in suburban communities like Yardley (where this intrepid FiveThirtyEight writer happened to grow up) and Newtown. Northern Bucks County, around Quakertown, is more Republican-leaning.
The Bottom Line
Mr. Obama is a 94 percent favorite in Pennsylvania, according to the current FiveThirtyEight forecast. The state is hard to move independent of a shift in the national political environment and is unlikely to vote Republican in an election that is so close nationally.
The new Restore Our Future ad buy notwithstanding, the Romney campaign has not seriously contested Pennsylvania, a state that is hard to move without an all-out effort. In the last 30 days, Ann Romney, Mr. Romney’s wife, campaigned once in Pittsburgh, and Mr. Romney visited Philadelphia for a fund-raiser.
The state’s partisan makeup has changed just slightly since 2008. The Democratic voter registration advantage in Pennsylvania doubled to a little over a million in the run-up to the 2008 election, Mr. Madonna said.
“Since 2008,” Mr. Madonna added, “the voter registration numbers have remained remarkably consistent.”
If Mr. Romney wins nationally by three or more percentage points, Pennsylvania could come along also. But in a closer contest, the Keystone State is likely to remain blue for Mr. Obama.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Presidential Geography: Michigan
The 2012 presidential election is a couple weeks away and there is still time for ads, debates, campaign stops, and polls. While the race will likely come down to about a dozen states, each state truly does play some role and even safe states for either party are needed to guarantee victory in November.
The New York Times and Micah Cohen have been taking a state by state look at each state throughout the the weeks leading up to Election Day. Next up is Michigan.
Michigan:
The government’s rescue of the American automobile industry appears to have given President Obama a slight boost in Ohio, whose 18 electoral votes may very well decide the nation’s next president. Even at times when the presidential race has been a dead heat nationally, Mr. Obama has retained a consistent lead in Ohio, a state that has usually been slightly Republican-leaning relative to the country as a whole.
But in Michigan — the home of the auto industry — the political effects of the rescue of General Motors and Chrysler have received less attention. Mr. Obama carried Michigan by 16 percentage points in 2008, suggesting the state’s 16 electoral votes were out of reach for Mitt Romney, rescue or no rescue.
There are a few problems with this logic, however. First, Mr. Obama’s margin in 2008 was somewhat inflated. Senator John McCain essentially conceded the state, pulling his campaign out of Michigan about a month before the election. Polls showed Mr. Obama’s lead quickly ballooning. Had Mr. McCain contested Michigan through the final month, the 2008 margin might have been closer.
Mr. Romney was also born in Detroit and raised in suburban Bloomfield Hills. His father, George Romney, was governor of Michigan from 1963 to 1969. Presidential candidates have historically received an average bonus of roughly seven percentage points in their home state. In fact, the last native Michigander to run for president, Gerald Ford, received that exactly, winning Michigan in 1976 by five percentage points while losing the national popular vote by two.
Nonetheless, the Romney campaign doesn’t seem to be seriously contesting Michigan. In the last 30 days, Ann Romney and Representative Paul D. Ryan have each visited the state once, but neither Mr. Romney nor Mr. Obama has campaigned there.
In a campaign with a native son on the ballot, “Michigan has lost its battleground status,” Mr. Ballenger said.
Can Mr. Obama thank the auto rescue for keeping Michigan out of play? Partly, but Mr. Romney is also unlikely to get a big home-state bonus, local analysts said.
Republicans carried Michigan in five consecutive presidential elections from 1972 through 1988. But Michigan wasn’t a truly Republican-leaning state; it was a tipping point state. It was reliably Republican because the nation was reliably Republican. During that period the G.O.P. won the White House every year but 1976, and Michigan went red then anyway because of Ford.
As cultural conservatism gained sway in the Republican Party nationally, however, socially moderate voters in suburban Michigan began favoring Democrats. This realignment was not as pronounced as it was in New England or the rest of the Northeast; Michigan has a strong anti-abortion movement. But the Wolverine State was relatively balanced politically — “It was the old Ohio,” Mr. Ballenger said — and a small shift toward the Democrats tipped the scales.
Democrats have carried Michigan in the last five presidential elections. The state’s leftward lean increased from two percentage points in 1992, relative to the national popular vote, to nine points in 2008.
Detroit, though a shadow of its former size, is heavily African-American and overwhelmingly Democrat-leaning. About half of Mr. Obama’s margin of victory in the state in 2008 came from Wayne County, where Detroit is. Democrats are also dominant in college towns like Ann Arbor and East Lansing; the state capital, Lansing; and smaller industrial cities like Flint.
The traditional base of Republican support is in the southwest, around Grand Rapids, where many voters are fiercely anti-abortion, influenced by the socially conservative Reformed Church in America (formerly the Dutch Reformed Church).
North of Grand Rapids and Flint, the state is more sparsely populated. The northern part of the lower peninsula is solidly Republican. The Upper Peninsula is traditionally blue-collar Democratic, but socially conservative and wary of gun control and environmental regulations, according to The Almanac of American Politics.
The two main political battlegrounds in Michigan are just north of Detroit: Oakland and Macomb Counties.
Macomb County is the birthplace of the “Reagan Democrats,” the socially conservative, white, working-class Democrats who voted for Ronald Reagan. Even after Reagan, Macomb County has been willing to vote Republican. George W. Bush carried it in 2004.
Macomb County is not as blue-collar as it once was, but it still has a lot of workers in the auto and related industries. Had there been no auto industry rescue, Macomb County voters — their connection to the Democratic Party already weak — might have moved even further to the Republican ticket. In fact, Mr. Romney may still carry the county; Mr. Obama won it with 53 percent in 2008.
The Bellwether: Oakland County
The other main swing county in Michigan is Oakland County, where Mr. Romney grew up. Oakland County has gone from a Republican bastion to a battleground as socially moderate voters in bustling suburban towns like Farmington Hills and West Bloomfield have trended Democratic. This area has also grown increasingly diverse, as middle-class African-American families have moved there from Detroit.
The partisan shift in Oakland County has made it an almost perfect bellwether for the statewide vote. It was one percentage point more Republican than the state in 2008 and roughly two points more Republican-leaning in 2004 and 2000. If Mr. Romney is having a really good night, and the Michigan vote is unexpectedly close, it will be apparent in Oakland County and Macomb County (itself a decent bellwether), which together accounted for almost a quarter of the vote in 2008.
The Bottom Line
Mr. Obama is a 97 percent favorite to carry Michigan, according to the current FiveThirtyEight forecast.
It is impossible to know what would have happened if General Motors and Chrysler had not been rescued, but Michigan’s economy might have been in far worse shape than it is now. The state’s unemployment rate is relatively high, at 9.3 percent, but it has dropped precipitously from a peak of more than 14 percent.
In addition, Mr. Romney doesn’t appear to be getting a substantial home-state benefit, both Mr. Ballenger and Mr. Grossman said.
“I don’t think many voters consider Romney a home-state candidate, especially not compared to Ford,” Mr. Grossman said.
Ford represented Michigan in Congress for more than two decades. Mr. Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, spent most of his adult life living outside of Michigan and was never elected to any political office in the state.
Mr. Romney didn’t appear to receive much of a home-state bonus inMichigan’s 2012 Republican primary. He squeaked by Rick Santorum by just three percentage points.
The FiveThirtyEight model currently projects Mr. Obama to carry Michigan by seven percentage points and the nation by 1.5 points. That would make Michigan 5.5 percentage points Democratic-leaning relative to the national average, almost exactly where it was from 1996 to 2004.
It is possible the boost to Mr. Obama from the auto rescue and Mr. Romney’s home-state bonus are canceling one another out. Or, perhaps neither is having a substantial effect.
“Michigan has been slightly to the left of center for a while now,” Mr. Grossman said, “and it doesn’t seem to be moving a whole lot, in my view.”
The New York Times and Micah Cohen have been taking a state by state look at each state throughout the the weeks leading up to Election Day. Next up is Michigan.
Michigan:
The government’s rescue of the American automobile industry appears to have given President Obama a slight boost in Ohio, whose 18 electoral votes may very well decide the nation’s next president. Even at times when the presidential race has been a dead heat nationally, Mr. Obama has retained a consistent lead in Ohio, a state that has usually been slightly Republican-leaning relative to the country as a whole.
But in Michigan — the home of the auto industry — the political effects of the rescue of General Motors and Chrysler have received less attention. Mr. Obama carried Michigan by 16 percentage points in 2008, suggesting the state’s 16 electoral votes were out of reach for Mitt Romney, rescue or no rescue.
There are a few problems with this logic, however. First, Mr. Obama’s margin in 2008 was somewhat inflated. Senator John McCain essentially conceded the state, pulling his campaign out of Michigan about a month before the election. Polls showed Mr. Obama’s lead quickly ballooning. Had Mr. McCain contested Michigan through the final month, the 2008 margin might have been closer.
Mr. Romney was also born in Detroit and raised in suburban Bloomfield Hills. His father, George Romney, was governor of Michigan from 1963 to 1969. Presidential candidates have historically received an average bonus of roughly seven percentage points in their home state. In fact, the last native Michigander to run for president, Gerald Ford, received that exactly, winning Michigan in 1976 by five percentage points while losing the national popular vote by two.
Nonetheless, the Romney campaign doesn’t seem to be seriously contesting Michigan. In the last 30 days, Ann Romney and Representative Paul D. Ryan have each visited the state once, but neither Mr. Romney nor Mr. Obama has campaigned there.
In a campaign with a native son on the ballot, “Michigan has lost its battleground status,” Mr. Ballenger said.
Can Mr. Obama thank the auto rescue for keeping Michigan out of play? Partly, but Mr. Romney is also unlikely to get a big home-state bonus, local analysts said.
Republicans carried Michigan in five consecutive presidential elections from 1972 through 1988. But Michigan wasn’t a truly Republican-leaning state; it was a tipping point state. It was reliably Republican because the nation was reliably Republican. During that period the G.O.P. won the White House every year but 1976, and Michigan went red then anyway because of Ford.
As cultural conservatism gained sway in the Republican Party nationally, however, socially moderate voters in suburban Michigan began favoring Democrats. This realignment was not as pronounced as it was in New England or the rest of the Northeast; Michigan has a strong anti-abortion movement. But the Wolverine State was relatively balanced politically — “It was the old Ohio,” Mr. Ballenger said — and a small shift toward the Democrats tipped the scales.
Democrats have carried Michigan in the last five presidential elections. The state’s leftward lean increased from two percentage points in 1992, relative to the national popular vote, to nine points in 2008.
Detroit, though a shadow of its former size, is heavily African-American and overwhelmingly Democrat-leaning. About half of Mr. Obama’s margin of victory in the state in 2008 came from Wayne County, where Detroit is. Democrats are also dominant in college towns like Ann Arbor and East Lansing; the state capital, Lansing; and smaller industrial cities like Flint.
The traditional base of Republican support is in the southwest, around Grand Rapids, where many voters are fiercely anti-abortion, influenced by the socially conservative Reformed Church in America (formerly the Dutch Reformed Church).
North of Grand Rapids and Flint, the state is more sparsely populated. The northern part of the lower peninsula is solidly Republican. The Upper Peninsula is traditionally blue-collar Democratic, but socially conservative and wary of gun control and environmental regulations, according to The Almanac of American Politics.
The two main political battlegrounds in Michigan are just north of Detroit: Oakland and Macomb Counties.
Macomb County is the birthplace of the “Reagan Democrats,” the socially conservative, white, working-class Democrats who voted for Ronald Reagan. Even after Reagan, Macomb County has been willing to vote Republican. George W. Bush carried it in 2004.
Macomb County is not as blue-collar as it once was, but it still has a lot of workers in the auto and related industries. Had there been no auto industry rescue, Macomb County voters — their connection to the Democratic Party already weak — might have moved even further to the Republican ticket. In fact, Mr. Romney may still carry the county; Mr. Obama won it with 53 percent in 2008.
The Bellwether: Oakland County
The other main swing county in Michigan is Oakland County, where Mr. Romney grew up. Oakland County has gone from a Republican bastion to a battleground as socially moderate voters in bustling suburban towns like Farmington Hills and West Bloomfield have trended Democratic. This area has also grown increasingly diverse, as middle-class African-American families have moved there from Detroit.
The partisan shift in Oakland County has made it an almost perfect bellwether for the statewide vote. It was one percentage point more Republican than the state in 2008 and roughly two points more Republican-leaning in 2004 and 2000. If Mr. Romney is having a really good night, and the Michigan vote is unexpectedly close, it will be apparent in Oakland County and Macomb County (itself a decent bellwether), which together accounted for almost a quarter of the vote in 2008.
The Bottom Line
Mr. Obama is a 97 percent favorite to carry Michigan, according to the current FiveThirtyEight forecast.
It is impossible to know what would have happened if General Motors and Chrysler had not been rescued, but Michigan’s economy might have been in far worse shape than it is now. The state’s unemployment rate is relatively high, at 9.3 percent, but it has dropped precipitously from a peak of more than 14 percent.
In addition, Mr. Romney doesn’t appear to be getting a substantial home-state benefit, both Mr. Ballenger and Mr. Grossman said.
“I don’t think many voters consider Romney a home-state candidate, especially not compared to Ford,” Mr. Grossman said.
Ford represented Michigan in Congress for more than two decades. Mr. Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, spent most of his adult life living outside of Michigan and was never elected to any political office in the state.
Mr. Romney didn’t appear to receive much of a home-state bonus inMichigan’s 2012 Republican primary. He squeaked by Rick Santorum by just three percentage points.
The FiveThirtyEight model currently projects Mr. Obama to carry Michigan by seven percentage points and the nation by 1.5 points. That would make Michigan 5.5 percentage points Democratic-leaning relative to the national average, almost exactly where it was from 1996 to 2004.
It is possible the boost to Mr. Obama from the auto rescue and Mr. Romney’s home-state bonus are canceling one another out. Or, perhaps neither is having a substantial effect.
“Michigan has been slightly to the left of center for a while now,” Mr. Grossman said, “and it doesn’t seem to be moving a whole lot, in my view.”
A Brother's call for a more serious approach to gun violence and reform
This past July, a shooting in a Colorado movie theater shook the nation. It was another shooting in a series of tragic incidents over the years that includes Tucson, AZ and Virginia Tech. After the Aurora shooting in July, survivors were going to grips with life after such a life altering experience.
One person, Stephen Barton, has taken the additional step to hopefully avoid any such incidents from occurring again. Barton is a Brother of Phi Sigma Pi National Honor Fraternity and he not only exemplifies the same organization I am part of but exemplifies what is great about America when average citizens challenge politicians and the country.
He provided the following in the Washington Post:
This summer, I almost died when a man with several guns opened fire on a packed movie theater audience at the midnight premiere of “The Dark Knight Rises.”
I had stopped in Aurora, Colo., for the night with my best friend. We were on a cross-country bicycling tour of America’s heartland and had already covered 2,750 miles through 10 states. Countless strangers along the way had offered us food, housing, money and, in one case, a salsa-dancing night held in our honor. Aside from a few careless drivers, not a single person ever came close to harming us.
All of that changed in Aurora.
I remember the tear-gas canister flying across the theater, the booming reverberation of the shotgun near the theater’s front-right emergency exit, the blinking light of the muzzle. There was abrupt pain as more than two dozen shotgun pellets pierced my face, neck, chest, arms and hands. Suddenly, I was a victim of gun violence.
Only the courage and skill of Aurora’s first responders and medical professionals made me a survivor.
I was lucky, but 12 of my fellow moviegoers were not. Their loved ones are left to mourn their violent and irrevocable departure. They are among the 34 American families who mourn the husbands, wives, daughters and sons who are murdered with guns in our country every day.
After the shooting, our national leaders offered their heartfelt condolences and sympathies, which I sincerely appreciate. But instead of starting a discussion on how to prevent such horrific tragedies, they effectively told the American people that it was too soon to talk about gun legislation — even though 48,000 Americans will be murdered with firearms during the next president’s term.
If we can’t talk about guns after one of our country’s worst mass shootings, when can we?
Toward the end of the town-hall presidential debate, the deafening silence on this topic was finally broken by Nina Gonzalez, a mother from Long Island who asked President Obama what he planned to do about assault weapons, particularly after failing to take up the issue in his current term. Moderator Candy Crowley introduced the question as one “we hear a lot.”
Unfortunately, both candidates’ answers were ones we hear a lot, too. Obama expressed interest in renewing the ban on assault weapons, but he didn’t discuss other gun-violence prevention measures. Mitt Romney argued that we don’t need new laws, focusing instead on the impact that family structure has on violence. Neither candidate acknowledged that 40 percent of guns sold in this country are sold privately and are not subject to a background check under federal law.
Neither candidate mentioned that 21 states have submitted fewer than 100 mental health records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System since it was launched in 1998.
Our government hasn’t done a “much better job in terms of background checks,” as Obama said in last week’s debate, nor will gun violence just fix itself, as Romney implied.
Legislation pending in Congress, the Fix Gun Checks Act, addresses these issues directly by requiring background checks on every gun sale and increasing the penalties for states that do not submit mental-health records.
Polling by Frank Luntz for Mayors Against Illegal Guns found this summer that 74 percent of gun owners who are members of the National Rifle Association and 87 percent of nonmembers who own guns support requiring a background check for every gun sale. In other words, the public overwhelmingly supports common-sense gun regulations that are hard on criminals and minimally obtrusive for law-abiding citizens.
Although the cars that nearly ran me over a few times during our bike trip are regulated and require registration nationwide, the lethal guns I saw being sold out of the back of a pickup truck when I bicycled through northern Louisiana are subject to barely any regulation.
Nina Gonzalez and I are among the more than 270,000 Americans who have signed a petitiondemanding a plan from both presidential candidates to reduce gun violence (www.demandaplan.org). We’ll never know whether a stronger background check system would have prevented the shooting in Aurora, but we do know that it will help save thousands of lives during the next president’s term.
Are you listening, President Obama and Mr. Romney?
One person, Stephen Barton, has taken the additional step to hopefully avoid any such incidents from occurring again. Barton is a Brother of Phi Sigma Pi National Honor Fraternity and he not only exemplifies the same organization I am part of but exemplifies what is great about America when average citizens challenge politicians and the country.
He provided the following in the Washington Post:
This summer, I almost died when a man with several guns opened fire on a packed movie theater audience at the midnight premiere of “The Dark Knight Rises.”
I had stopped in Aurora, Colo., for the night with my best friend. We were on a cross-country bicycling tour of America’s heartland and had already covered 2,750 miles through 10 states. Countless strangers along the way had offered us food, housing, money and, in one case, a salsa-dancing night held in our honor. Aside from a few careless drivers, not a single person ever came close to harming us.
All of that changed in Aurora.
I remember the tear-gas canister flying across the theater, the booming reverberation of the shotgun near the theater’s front-right emergency exit, the blinking light of the muzzle. There was abrupt pain as more than two dozen shotgun pellets pierced my face, neck, chest, arms and hands. Suddenly, I was a victim of gun violence.
Only the courage and skill of Aurora’s first responders and medical professionals made me a survivor.
I was lucky, but 12 of my fellow moviegoers were not. Their loved ones are left to mourn their violent and irrevocable departure. They are among the 34 American families who mourn the husbands, wives, daughters and sons who are murdered with guns in our country every day.
After the shooting, our national leaders offered their heartfelt condolences and sympathies, which I sincerely appreciate. But instead of starting a discussion on how to prevent such horrific tragedies, they effectively told the American people that it was too soon to talk about gun legislation — even though 48,000 Americans will be murdered with firearms during the next president’s term.
If we can’t talk about guns after one of our country’s worst mass shootings, when can we?
Toward the end of the town-hall presidential debate, the deafening silence on this topic was finally broken by Nina Gonzalez, a mother from Long Island who asked President Obama what he planned to do about assault weapons, particularly after failing to take up the issue in his current term. Moderator Candy Crowley introduced the question as one “we hear a lot.”
Unfortunately, both candidates’ answers were ones we hear a lot, too. Obama expressed interest in renewing the ban on assault weapons, but he didn’t discuss other gun-violence prevention measures. Mitt Romney argued that we don’t need new laws, focusing instead on the impact that family structure has on violence. Neither candidate acknowledged that 40 percent of guns sold in this country are sold privately and are not subject to a background check under federal law.
Neither candidate mentioned that 21 states have submitted fewer than 100 mental health records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System since it was launched in 1998.
Our government hasn’t done a “much better job in terms of background checks,” as Obama said in last week’s debate, nor will gun violence just fix itself, as Romney implied.
Legislation pending in Congress, the Fix Gun Checks Act, addresses these issues directly by requiring background checks on every gun sale and increasing the penalties for states that do not submit mental-health records.
Polling by Frank Luntz for Mayors Against Illegal Guns found this summer that 74 percent of gun owners who are members of the National Rifle Association and 87 percent of nonmembers who own guns support requiring a background check for every gun sale. In other words, the public overwhelmingly supports common-sense gun regulations that are hard on criminals and minimally obtrusive for law-abiding citizens.
Although the cars that nearly ran me over a few times during our bike trip are regulated and require registration nationwide, the lethal guns I saw being sold out of the back of a pickup truck when I bicycled through northern Louisiana are subject to barely any regulation.
Nina Gonzalez and I are among the more than 270,000 Americans who have signed a petitiondemanding a plan from both presidential candidates to reduce gun violence (www.demandaplan.org). We’ll never know whether a stronger background check system would have prevented the shooting in Aurora, but we do know that it will help save thousands of lives during the next president’s term.
Are you listening, President Obama and Mr. Romney?
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Presidential Geography: Arizona
The 2012 presidential election is a couple weeks away and there is still time for ads, debates, campaign stops, and polls. While the race will likely come down to about a dozen states, each state truly does play some role and even safe states for either party are needed to guarantee victory in November.
The New York Times and Micah Cohen have been taking a state by state look at each state throughout the the weeks leading up to Election Day. Next up is Arizona.
Arizona:
While the Republican primaries were still unfolding, the Obama campaign suggested it could compete in Arizona. That looks to have been a bit optimistic: polls show Mitt Romney leading comfortably.
But the idea that Arizona would be a battleground in 2012 made some sense. President Obama made substantial gains in the Southwest in 2008, carrying three of Arizona’s neighbors — Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico — that had voted Republican in 2004. Arizona was the exception, but Mr. Obama had a good excuse: there was an Arizonan on the ballot, Senator John McCain.
In 2012 that would not be an issue; Mr. Romney has a lot of “home” states (he was governor of Massachusetts, grew up in Michigan and has a vacation home in New Hampshire), but Arizona isn’t one of them.
In addition, Democrats have some advantages in the Grand Canyon State. It is almost one-third Hispanic, the fourth-highest share in the nation, and polls show Latinos favoring Mr. Obama over Mr. Romney by about two to one. Arizona is also the ninth-most-urban state by population, with a majority of its residents clustered in and around Phoenix.
Nonetheless, Arizona simply isn’t that near to the tipping point. In a presidential election that is at all close nationally — and the 2012 race is certainly close — Arizona is not a truly competitive state, yet. (More on that yet in a moment.)
Hispanics may comprise about 30 percent of the state, but they make up 25 percent of the state’s voting-age population, because they skew much younger than non-Hispanic whites. In addition, roughly one-third of Arizona Latinos are undocumented and cannot vote. Even among Hispanics who can vote, turnout has lagged behind that of non-Hispanic whites.
In percentage terms, Hispanics account for roughly half as much of the Arizona electorate, 16 percent, as they do the state’s overall population, 30 percent.
And even though the state’s Latino voters have helped move Arizona toward the political left, the state started far to the political right. Republicans carried Arizona in every presidential race from 1952 to 1992, the only state to stay Republican over that period. Arizona was home to Barry Goldwater, one of the most conservative Republicans to run for president since 1952. Mr. Goldwater exemplified the political ethos of the state: conservative, with a strong libertarian streak.
Arizona is a Republican-leaning state largely because Maricopa County is a Republican-leaning county. With about 60 percent of the electorate, Maricopa County’s political preferences tend to carry the day.
While Phoenix itself skews Democratic, most of the vast suburbs do not. “The East Valley — including Scottsdale, Chandler, Gilbert and Mesa — tend to be quite Republican,” Mr. Berman said. The East Valley also has a large Mormon community. (Arizona is the fifth-most Mormon state, but members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints make up just 5 percent of the state over all).
The Republican Party also dominates in western and southeastern Arizona. Mohave and Yavapai Counties, in the northwest, are older, more rural, less diverse and more socially conservative than the Phoenix suburbs.
Maricopa County is so big that even though it leans Republican, Democrats get the bulk of their votes there, too. But the main Democratic-leaning county in Arizona is Pima County, which is more than one-third Hispanic and includes Tucson, where the University of Arizona is situated
Politics in Arizona’s less populated counties tends to be determined by a mix of demographics and religion. Democrats normally carry Coconino County, which includes Flagstaff and is about a quarter Native American and 15 percent Hispanic; Apache County, which is about 72 percent American Indian; and Santa Cruz County, which is almost 83 percent Hispanic.
Graham County is reliably Republican. It is 31 percent Hispanic but also 26 percent Mormon. Navajo County has been more marginally Republican. It is 43 percent American Indian but 20 percent Mormon.
The Bellwether
Maricopa County accounts for so much of Arizona’s electorate that it is almost guaranteed to be a good bellwether for the statewide vote. It was just one percentage point more Republican-leaning than the state in 2008 and was just two percentage points more Democratic-leaning in 2004 and 2000.
The Bottom Line
Mr. Romney is a 98 percent favorite in Arizona, according to the current FiveThirtyEight forecast. But the days when Republicans can count on carrying the Grand Canyon State may be numbered.
More and more voters are registering as independents. The number of unaffiliated voters has surpassed the number of registered Democrats and is soon expected to overtake the number of Republicans, Mr. Berman said. The ideological middle of Arizona’s electorate may also gain more sway if voters pass Proposition 121, an initiative on the November ballot that would replace the current party primaries with one primary open to all voters. In the open primary system, the top two finishers advance to the general election regardless of party.
But the most powerful potential factor pushing Arizona to the political center remains the state’s Latino population and the prospect that Latino turnout rates will rise. Even with depressed turnout, Hispanics doubled as a share of the electorate to 16 percent in the 2008 presidential election from 8 percent in 1992.
As in Texas, it’s long been predicted that this is the year Arizona Latinos will really go to the polls.
“Everyone’s been waiting for Latinos to flex their political muscle,” Mr. Garcia said.
Mr. Merrill added, “I’ve been here 40 years, and it hasn’t happened so far.”
The November elections may not draw a flood of new Latino voters, but there are reasons to expect an uptick. “The Hispanic population is much more mobilized and engaged, in part because of the anti-illegal immigration campaign that was for a couple years the thing that got the Republicans going here,” Mr. Merrill said.
Latino voters have also been energized by the push to pass the Dream Act for undocumented young people and Mr. Obama’s decision to stop the deportation of young undocumented immigrants under certain conditions, Mr. Garcia said.
Signs of an energized Hispanic electorate are apparent in the Democratic Senate candidate Richard H. Carmona‘s surprisingly strong campaign against Representative Jeff Flake, who was thought to have the seat of Senator Jon Kyl, who is retiring, locked up. Arizona hasn’t had a Democratic senator in almost 18 years.
Mr. Carmona, who is Puerto Rican, is currently a modest underdog in the FiveThirtyEight forecast; Mr. Flake is a 69 percent favorite. But “the Carmona-Flake race is an interesting example of Arizona starting to moderate a little bit,” Mr. Cieslak said. “It’s going to come down to the wire.”
If the Republican Party does not improve its standing among Hispanics, it seems almost inevitable that Arizona will become substantially more competitive. Hispanics will make up one in four registered voters by 2030, according to an analysis by the Morrison Institute for Public Policy.
“I think this is the last election you could win without the Latino vote,” Mr. Garcia said.
The New York Times and Micah Cohen have been taking a state by state look at each state throughout the the weeks leading up to Election Day. Next up is Arizona.
Arizona:
While the Republican primaries were still unfolding, the Obama campaign suggested it could compete in Arizona. That looks to have been a bit optimistic: polls show Mitt Romney leading comfortably.
But the idea that Arizona would be a battleground in 2012 made some sense. President Obama made substantial gains in the Southwest in 2008, carrying three of Arizona’s neighbors — Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico — that had voted Republican in 2004. Arizona was the exception, but Mr. Obama had a good excuse: there was an Arizonan on the ballot, Senator John McCain.
In 2012 that would not be an issue; Mr. Romney has a lot of “home” states (he was governor of Massachusetts, grew up in Michigan and has a vacation home in New Hampshire), but Arizona isn’t one of them.
In addition, Democrats have some advantages in the Grand Canyon State. It is almost one-third Hispanic, the fourth-highest share in the nation, and polls show Latinos favoring Mr. Obama over Mr. Romney by about two to one. Arizona is also the ninth-most-urban state by population, with a majority of its residents clustered in and around Phoenix.
Nonetheless, Arizona simply isn’t that near to the tipping point. In a presidential election that is at all close nationally — and the 2012 race is certainly close — Arizona is not a truly competitive state, yet. (More on that yet in a moment.)
Hispanics may comprise about 30 percent of the state, but they make up 25 percent of the state’s voting-age population, because they skew much younger than non-Hispanic whites. In addition, roughly one-third of Arizona Latinos are undocumented and cannot vote. Even among Hispanics who can vote, turnout has lagged behind that of non-Hispanic whites.
In percentage terms, Hispanics account for roughly half as much of the Arizona electorate, 16 percent, as they do the state’s overall population, 30 percent.
And even though the state’s Latino voters have helped move Arizona toward the political left, the state started far to the political right. Republicans carried Arizona in every presidential race from 1952 to 1992, the only state to stay Republican over that period. Arizona was home to Barry Goldwater, one of the most conservative Republicans to run for president since 1952. Mr. Goldwater exemplified the political ethos of the state: conservative, with a strong libertarian streak.
Arizona is a Republican-leaning state largely because Maricopa County is a Republican-leaning county. With about 60 percent of the electorate, Maricopa County’s political preferences tend to carry the day.
While Phoenix itself skews Democratic, most of the vast suburbs do not. “The East Valley — including Scottsdale, Chandler, Gilbert and Mesa — tend to be quite Republican,” Mr. Berman said. The East Valley also has a large Mormon community. (Arizona is the fifth-most Mormon state, but members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints make up just 5 percent of the state over all).
The Republican Party also dominates in western and southeastern Arizona. Mohave and Yavapai Counties, in the northwest, are older, more rural, less diverse and more socially conservative than the Phoenix suburbs.
Maricopa County is so big that even though it leans Republican, Democrats get the bulk of their votes there, too. But the main Democratic-leaning county in Arizona is Pima County, which is more than one-third Hispanic and includes Tucson, where the University of Arizona is situated
Politics in Arizona’s less populated counties tends to be determined by a mix of demographics and religion. Democrats normally carry Coconino County, which includes Flagstaff and is about a quarter Native American and 15 percent Hispanic; Apache County, which is about 72 percent American Indian; and Santa Cruz County, which is almost 83 percent Hispanic.
Graham County is reliably Republican. It is 31 percent Hispanic but also 26 percent Mormon. Navajo County has been more marginally Republican. It is 43 percent American Indian but 20 percent Mormon.
The Bellwether
Maricopa County accounts for so much of Arizona’s electorate that it is almost guaranteed to be a good bellwether for the statewide vote. It was just one percentage point more Republican-leaning than the state in 2008 and was just two percentage points more Democratic-leaning in 2004 and 2000.
The Bottom Line
Mr. Romney is a 98 percent favorite in Arizona, according to the current FiveThirtyEight forecast. But the days when Republicans can count on carrying the Grand Canyon State may be numbered.
More and more voters are registering as independents. The number of unaffiliated voters has surpassed the number of registered Democrats and is soon expected to overtake the number of Republicans, Mr. Berman said. The ideological middle of Arizona’s electorate may also gain more sway if voters pass Proposition 121, an initiative on the November ballot that would replace the current party primaries with one primary open to all voters. In the open primary system, the top two finishers advance to the general election regardless of party.
But the most powerful potential factor pushing Arizona to the political center remains the state’s Latino population and the prospect that Latino turnout rates will rise. Even with depressed turnout, Hispanics doubled as a share of the electorate to 16 percent in the 2008 presidential election from 8 percent in 1992.
As in Texas, it’s long been predicted that this is the year Arizona Latinos will really go to the polls.
“Everyone’s been waiting for Latinos to flex their political muscle,” Mr. Garcia said.
Mr. Merrill added, “I’ve been here 40 years, and it hasn’t happened so far.”
The November elections may not draw a flood of new Latino voters, but there are reasons to expect an uptick. “The Hispanic population is much more mobilized and engaged, in part because of the anti-illegal immigration campaign that was for a couple years the thing that got the Republicans going here,” Mr. Merrill said.
Latino voters have also been energized by the push to pass the Dream Act for undocumented young people and Mr. Obama’s decision to stop the deportation of young undocumented immigrants under certain conditions, Mr. Garcia said.
Signs of an energized Hispanic electorate are apparent in the Democratic Senate candidate Richard H. Carmona‘s surprisingly strong campaign against Representative Jeff Flake, who was thought to have the seat of Senator Jon Kyl, who is retiring, locked up. Arizona hasn’t had a Democratic senator in almost 18 years.
Mr. Carmona, who is Puerto Rican, is currently a modest underdog in the FiveThirtyEight forecast; Mr. Flake is a 69 percent favorite. But “the Carmona-Flake race is an interesting example of Arizona starting to moderate a little bit,” Mr. Cieslak said. “It’s going to come down to the wire.”
If the Republican Party does not improve its standing among Hispanics, it seems almost inevitable that Arizona will become substantially more competitive. Hispanics will make up one in four registered voters by 2030, according to an analysis by the Morrison Institute for Public Policy.
“I think this is the last election you could win without the Latino vote,” Mr. Garcia said.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Presidential Geography: Indiana
The 2012 presidential election is a couple weeks away and there is still time for ads, debates, campaign stops, and polls. While the race will likely come down to about a dozen states, each state truly does play some role and even safe states for either party are needed to guarantee victory in November.
The New York Times and Micah Cohen have been taking a state by state look at each state throughout the the weeks leading up to Election Day. Next up is Indiana.
Indiana:
Between the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections, Indiana swung 22 percentage points to the left, from favoring the Republican George W. Bush by 21 points in 2004 to President Obama by a single point in 2008. It was the largest swing — in either direction — by a nonhome state since the 1992 election.
But the Hoosier State’s barely blue tinge faded quickly: Polls show Mitt Romney carrying it by double digits this year.
Indiana has not become a swing state.
The 2008 results — the first victory by a Democratic presidential candidate in Indiana since 1964 — were not caused by a shift in the state’s political fundamentals. Instead, 2008 was somewhat of an anomaly, caused by the intersection of mostly external factors and a favorable political environment for Democrats nationally.
First, the state’s Democratic primary in May, a hard-fought contest between Mr. Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, established a campaign infrastructure and raised enthusiasm among local Democrats, Mr. Downs said.
“The energy that was created in May was not that difficult to translate into November,” he said.
Geography also played a role. Indiana’s western neighbor is Mr. Obama’s home state, Illinois, and the Obama campaign was headquartered in Chicago. Volunteers from Illinois flooded across the border, while Indiana Democrats — who in past presidential contests had left Indiana to help campaign in neighboring battleground states — stayed to work in their home state.
At the same time, Senator John McCain’s campaign chose not to vigorously defend the state. “There was not a really good McCain structure,” Mr. Downs said.
The economy was a factor as well. About one in five Indiana jobs are based in manufacturing, one of the highest proportions in the country. As the economy fell apart before the election, manufacturing was one of the first sectors to be hit, and Indiana’s jobless rate climbed faster and higher than the nation’s. Hoosier voters were particularly keen on voting for change.
More generally, there was latent Democratic support in Indiana.
“Indiana is a red-leaning, ticket-splitting state,” Mr. Howey said, “and Hoosiers are not afraid to vote for the Democrat at the state level if they think that they’re the better candidate.”
Voters may have been accustomed to pulling the G.O.P. lever in presidential campaigns, but picking a Democrat wasn’t a completely alien concept. Indiana had Democratic governors from 1989 through 2004, and this year’s Senate race between Joe Donnelly, a Democrat, and Richard Mourdock, a Republican, is a tossup, according to the current FiveThirtyEight forecast.
In other words, Democratic presidential candidates had underachieved in Indiana until 2008, when Mr. Obama very much overachieved. The Obama campaign doesn’t have all those factors working in its favor this year, and the Hoosier state will most likely revert to its default partisan position: a reliably red state in presidential elections.
The Democrats have two main strongholds in Indiana. The first is Indianapolis, which has become much more Democratic-leaning over the last 10 to 15 years, Mr. Howey said, as more affluent, conservative-leaning voters moved to the suburbs.
In 2004, John Kerry carried Marion County, which consists almost entirely of Indianapolis, by about 6,200 votes. In 2008, Mr. Obama overwhelmed Mr. McCain in Marion County by roughly 106,000 votes.
The other Democratic-leaning area is Northwest Indiana, a region of working-class manufacturing towns that also had a sharp rise in the Democratic vote from 2004 to 2008. Gary’s Lake County is solidly blue, while the counties stretching from Gary east to St. Joseph County and the University of Notre Dame in South Bend are more marginally Democratic-leaning. Mr. Obama carried Northwest Indiana comfortably in 2008, but outside of Lake County the region is usually less left-leaning.
The rest of Indiana — outside of several counties dominated by university towns — is reliably Republican, particularly in presidential elections. The suburban communities in the “doughnut counties” that surround Indianapolis have become one of two bases of Republican power in the state. The doughnut counties are home to traditional suburban Republicans, fiscally conservative and family-oriented voters who tend to be more focused on issues like education than abortion and same-sex marriage, Mr. Howey said.
That contrasts with more socially conservative Northeast Indiana, the other base of G.O.P. support. The region around Fort Wayne, a mix of suburban, exurban and rural areas, is home to some of the most conservative voters the nation, Mr. Howey said.
The Bellwether: Vanderburgh County
Evansville’s Vanderburgh County, in southwest Indiana, has been a strong bellwether for the statewide vote in the last two presidential elections. It was one percentage point to the left of the state in 2008 and 2004, after being three percentage points more Democratic in 2000.
Southwest Indiana was historically dominated by “Butternut Democrats,” Indiana’s version of the socially conservative, working-class white voters in Southern states like Georgia and Alabama who were solid Democrats for generations but have been trending Republican. The realignment toward the G.O.P., just as in the South, happened first at the presidential level and then in state and local races.
The Bottom Line
Mr. Romney is a 100 percent favorite to carry Indiana, according to the current FiveThirtyEight forecast, and Indiana’s brief flirtation with Mr. Obama appears to have ended. In fact, one dynamic that may have helped Mr. Obama in 2008 may be hurting him now: Indiana’s willingness to oust incumbents.
“Hoosier voters are willing to throw the bums out no matter who they are,” Mr. Howey said.
The Indiana House of Representatives has shifted hands several times over the past decades, Mr. Howey said. So have several Congressional seats, and the incumbent governor was defeated in 2004. Just this year, Indiana Republicans ousted Richard G. Lugar, one of the Senate’s longest-serving members, in a primary.
Indiana’s seeming unwillingness to give incumbents the benefit of the doubt is working against Mr. Obama this year, particularly as Indiana’s jobless rate, at 8.3 percent, recently swung above the national average.
The New York Times and Micah Cohen have been taking a state by state look at each state throughout the the weeks leading up to Election Day. Next up is Indiana.
Indiana:
Between the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections, Indiana swung 22 percentage points to the left, from favoring the Republican George W. Bush by 21 points in 2004 to President Obama by a single point in 2008. It was the largest swing — in either direction — by a nonhome state since the 1992 election.
But the Hoosier State’s barely blue tinge faded quickly: Polls show Mitt Romney carrying it by double digits this year.
Indiana has not become a swing state.
The 2008 results — the first victory by a Democratic presidential candidate in Indiana since 1964 — were not caused by a shift in the state’s political fundamentals. Instead, 2008 was somewhat of an anomaly, caused by the intersection of mostly external factors and a favorable political environment for Democrats nationally.
First, the state’s Democratic primary in May, a hard-fought contest between Mr. Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, established a campaign infrastructure and raised enthusiasm among local Democrats, Mr. Downs said.
“The energy that was created in May was not that difficult to translate into November,” he said.
Geography also played a role. Indiana’s western neighbor is Mr. Obama’s home state, Illinois, and the Obama campaign was headquartered in Chicago. Volunteers from Illinois flooded across the border, while Indiana Democrats — who in past presidential contests had left Indiana to help campaign in neighboring battleground states — stayed to work in their home state.
At the same time, Senator John McCain’s campaign chose not to vigorously defend the state. “There was not a really good McCain structure,” Mr. Downs said.
The economy was a factor as well. About one in five Indiana jobs are based in manufacturing, one of the highest proportions in the country. As the economy fell apart before the election, manufacturing was one of the first sectors to be hit, and Indiana’s jobless rate climbed faster and higher than the nation’s. Hoosier voters were particularly keen on voting for change.
More generally, there was latent Democratic support in Indiana.
“Indiana is a red-leaning, ticket-splitting state,” Mr. Howey said, “and Hoosiers are not afraid to vote for the Democrat at the state level if they think that they’re the better candidate.”
Voters may have been accustomed to pulling the G.O.P. lever in presidential campaigns, but picking a Democrat wasn’t a completely alien concept. Indiana had Democratic governors from 1989 through 2004, and this year’s Senate race between Joe Donnelly, a Democrat, and Richard Mourdock, a Republican, is a tossup, according to the current FiveThirtyEight forecast.
In other words, Democratic presidential candidates had underachieved in Indiana until 2008, when Mr. Obama very much overachieved. The Obama campaign doesn’t have all those factors working in its favor this year, and the Hoosier state will most likely revert to its default partisan position: a reliably red state in presidential elections.
The Democrats have two main strongholds in Indiana. The first is Indianapolis, which has become much more Democratic-leaning over the last 10 to 15 years, Mr. Howey said, as more affluent, conservative-leaning voters moved to the suburbs.
In 2004, John Kerry carried Marion County, which consists almost entirely of Indianapolis, by about 6,200 votes. In 2008, Mr. Obama overwhelmed Mr. McCain in Marion County by roughly 106,000 votes.
The other Democratic-leaning area is Northwest Indiana, a region of working-class manufacturing towns that also had a sharp rise in the Democratic vote from 2004 to 2008. Gary’s Lake County is solidly blue, while the counties stretching from Gary east to St. Joseph County and the University of Notre Dame in South Bend are more marginally Democratic-leaning. Mr. Obama carried Northwest Indiana comfortably in 2008, but outside of Lake County the region is usually less left-leaning.
The rest of Indiana — outside of several counties dominated by university towns — is reliably Republican, particularly in presidential elections. The suburban communities in the “doughnut counties” that surround Indianapolis have become one of two bases of Republican power in the state. The doughnut counties are home to traditional suburban Republicans, fiscally conservative and family-oriented voters who tend to be more focused on issues like education than abortion and same-sex marriage, Mr. Howey said.
That contrasts with more socially conservative Northeast Indiana, the other base of G.O.P. support. The region around Fort Wayne, a mix of suburban, exurban and rural areas, is home to some of the most conservative voters the nation, Mr. Howey said.
The Bellwether: Vanderburgh County
Evansville’s Vanderburgh County, in southwest Indiana, has been a strong bellwether for the statewide vote in the last two presidential elections. It was one percentage point to the left of the state in 2008 and 2004, after being three percentage points more Democratic in 2000.
Southwest Indiana was historically dominated by “Butternut Democrats,” Indiana’s version of the socially conservative, working-class white voters in Southern states like Georgia and Alabama who were solid Democrats for generations but have been trending Republican. The realignment toward the G.O.P., just as in the South, happened first at the presidential level and then in state and local races.
The Bottom Line
Mr. Romney is a 100 percent favorite to carry Indiana, according to the current FiveThirtyEight forecast, and Indiana’s brief flirtation with Mr. Obama appears to have ended. In fact, one dynamic that may have helped Mr. Obama in 2008 may be hurting him now: Indiana’s willingness to oust incumbents.
“Hoosier voters are willing to throw the bums out no matter who they are,” Mr. Howey said.
The Indiana House of Representatives has shifted hands several times over the past decades, Mr. Howey said. So have several Congressional seats, and the incumbent governor was defeated in 2004. Just this year, Indiana Republicans ousted Richard G. Lugar, one of the Senate’s longest-serving members, in a primary.
Indiana’s seeming unwillingness to give incumbents the benefit of the doubt is working against Mr. Obama this year, particularly as Indiana’s jobless rate, at 8.3 percent, recently swung above the national average.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Presidential Geography: Rhode Island
The 2012 presidential election is a couple weeks away and there is still time for ads, debates, campaign stops, and polls. While the race will likely come down to about a dozen states, each state truly does play some role and even safe states for either party are needed to guarantee victory in November.
The New York Times and Micah Cohen have been taking a state by state look at each state throughout the the weeks leading up to Election Day. Next up is Rhode Island.
Rhode Island:
In the Rhode Island State Legislature, “there are so few Republicans they barely give them parking spaces,” Ms. Moakley said.
Indeed, Rhode Island is among the most Democratic-leaning states. It ranks as the fourth bluest state in the nation in the FiveThirtyEight Presidential Voting Index, and Democrats have more than a 3-to-1 edge in voter registration, an overwhelming advantage.
Yet Rhode Island has not elected a Democratic governor since 1992. And one of its two United States senators was a Republican from 1976 to 2007: John Chafee, then his son Lincoln Chafee. The younger Mr. Chafee, now an independent, was elected governor in 2010.
What allows for such disparate results? Elasticity. Rhode Island is the most elastic state, a large swatch of its electorate are persuadable voters unaligned with either political party. Rhode Island has very few Republicans (10 percent of registered voters), a ton of Democrats (41 percent), but even more unaffiliated voters (49 percent).
In presidential races, those unaffiliated voters break largely for the Democrat. The last Republican to carry the state was Ronald Reagan in 1984. But at the state level, unaffiliated voters have often opted to elect socially moderate Republican governors as a check on the Democratic-controlled legislature, Mr. Mackay said.
Rhode Island has a lot of swing voters, partly because the state’s main demographic groups do not correlate strongly with either political party.Democrats have a solid base in the state’s Hispanic population (13 percent) and black population (7 percent). But outside of those communities voters do not fit perfectly into either major party. Many Democrats are former Rockefeller Republicans, and many Republicans are Reagan Democrats. Party affiliation is a weak bond for many Rhode Island voters.
In addition, Rhode Island’s largest religious populace, Roman Catholics, also tend to be swing voters. Nationally, every winning presidential candidate since the 1972 election has also carried the Catholic vote.
Rhode Island is the only majority Catholic state (52 percent) in the nation, according to Gallup (Massachusetts comes close). And unlike evangelical Christians and Mormons (who lean heavily Republican) or Jews (who lean Democratic), Catholic voters are split roughly down the middle. White Catholics lean slightly Republican, but Hispanic Catholics skew Democratic.
Providence is overwhelmingly Democratic, with mostly white, highly educated and affluent liberals around Brown University, a large Jewish community and more working-class and diverse Democrats in the city’s black and Latino populations.
Northern Rhode Island, around Woonsocket, is socially conservative but more supportive of an activist government on issues like Social Security, Mr. Mackay said. This is Reagan Democrat territory.
Conversely, in southern Rhode Island in Washington County, socially moderate, highly educated and wealthy voters live along the water in towns like Westerly and Charlestown. This is a region dominated by Rockefeller Republicans, the old base of the Republican Party in New England, who now vote for Democrats.
Between the two, Kent County, anchored by Warwick, is mostly suburban, relatively affluent and one of Rhode Island’s more competitive counties. This was the only county in Rhode Island where Senator John McCain carried more than 40 percent of the vote in 2008.
The Bellwether: Bristol County
Look to Bristol County for an early clue as to how Rhode Island will vote. It includes remnants of the state’s traditional economic drivers in Bristol and Warren, like fishing and manufacturing. But there’s also manifestations of a new knowledge-based economy in wealthy, suburban towns like Barrington, Mr. Mackay said. And over all, Bristol County is becoming more affluent and gentrified, Ms. Moakley said.
Bristol County was a few percentage points more Republican leaning than the state in the 2000 presidential election, but it matched the two-party vote shares in Rhode Island almost perfectly in 2004 and 2008.
The Bottom Line
Mr. Obama is a 100 percent favorite to carry Rhode Island, according to the current FiveThirtyEight, and all signs point to it remaining reliably Democratic-leaning in presidential elections.
A resurgent Republican Party seems unlikely in Rhode Island. As long as the national Republican brand is strongly defined by cultural conservatism, socially moderate, fiscal conservatives in Rhode Island will most likely continue to vote Democratic.
This dynamic has been apparent by this year’s race for Rhode Island First Congressional District. Brenden Doherty, a Republican, was running as a moderate and seemed to be leading the incumbent, Representative David Cicilline, a Democrat. But as the presidential race kicked into full gear, Ms. Moakley said, Mr. Cicilline was able to tie Mr. Doherty with Mr. Romney and the national Republican Party. The latest polls show Mr. Cicilline in front.
Mr. Doherty could still win, of course, but the national Republican brand is a millstone for Rhode Island Republicans, making it harder for them to gain office.
Rhode Island still has socially moderate, fiscally conservative voters. It just doesn’t have a partisan home for them.
So while the odds are against state Republicans ascending to power, there could be “an increasing move toward independent candidates,” Ms. Moakley said.
“Because,” she added, “there’s so many people with no place to go.”
The New York Times and Micah Cohen have been taking a state by state look at each state throughout the the weeks leading up to Election Day. Next up is Rhode Island.
Rhode Island:
In the Rhode Island State Legislature, “there are so few Republicans they barely give them parking spaces,” Ms. Moakley said.
Indeed, Rhode Island is among the most Democratic-leaning states. It ranks as the fourth bluest state in the nation in the FiveThirtyEight Presidential Voting Index, and Democrats have more than a 3-to-1 edge in voter registration, an overwhelming advantage.
Yet Rhode Island has not elected a Democratic governor since 1992. And one of its two United States senators was a Republican from 1976 to 2007: John Chafee, then his son Lincoln Chafee. The younger Mr. Chafee, now an independent, was elected governor in 2010.
What allows for such disparate results? Elasticity. Rhode Island is the most elastic state, a large swatch of its electorate are persuadable voters unaligned with either political party. Rhode Island has very few Republicans (10 percent of registered voters), a ton of Democrats (41 percent), but even more unaffiliated voters (49 percent).
In presidential races, those unaffiliated voters break largely for the Democrat. The last Republican to carry the state was Ronald Reagan in 1984. But at the state level, unaffiliated voters have often opted to elect socially moderate Republican governors as a check on the Democratic-controlled legislature, Mr. Mackay said.
Rhode Island has a lot of swing voters, partly because the state’s main demographic groups do not correlate strongly with either political party.Democrats have a solid base in the state’s Hispanic population (13 percent) and black population (7 percent). But outside of those communities voters do not fit perfectly into either major party. Many Democrats are former Rockefeller Republicans, and many Republicans are Reagan Democrats. Party affiliation is a weak bond for many Rhode Island voters.
In addition, Rhode Island’s largest religious populace, Roman Catholics, also tend to be swing voters. Nationally, every winning presidential candidate since the 1972 election has also carried the Catholic vote.
Rhode Island is the only majority Catholic state (52 percent) in the nation, according to Gallup (Massachusetts comes close). And unlike evangelical Christians and Mormons (who lean heavily Republican) or Jews (who lean Democratic), Catholic voters are split roughly down the middle. White Catholics lean slightly Republican, but Hispanic Catholics skew Democratic.
Providence is overwhelmingly Democratic, with mostly white, highly educated and affluent liberals around Brown University, a large Jewish community and more working-class and diverse Democrats in the city’s black and Latino populations.
Northern Rhode Island, around Woonsocket, is socially conservative but more supportive of an activist government on issues like Social Security, Mr. Mackay said. This is Reagan Democrat territory.
Conversely, in southern Rhode Island in Washington County, socially moderate, highly educated and wealthy voters live along the water in towns like Westerly and Charlestown. This is a region dominated by Rockefeller Republicans, the old base of the Republican Party in New England, who now vote for Democrats.
Between the two, Kent County, anchored by Warwick, is mostly suburban, relatively affluent and one of Rhode Island’s more competitive counties. This was the only county in Rhode Island where Senator John McCain carried more than 40 percent of the vote in 2008.
The Bellwether: Bristol County
Look to Bristol County for an early clue as to how Rhode Island will vote. It includes remnants of the state’s traditional economic drivers in Bristol and Warren, like fishing and manufacturing. But there’s also manifestations of a new knowledge-based economy in wealthy, suburban towns like Barrington, Mr. Mackay said. And over all, Bristol County is becoming more affluent and gentrified, Ms. Moakley said.
Bristol County was a few percentage points more Republican leaning than the state in the 2000 presidential election, but it matched the two-party vote shares in Rhode Island almost perfectly in 2004 and 2008.
The Bottom Line
Mr. Obama is a 100 percent favorite to carry Rhode Island, according to the current FiveThirtyEight, and all signs point to it remaining reliably Democratic-leaning in presidential elections.
A resurgent Republican Party seems unlikely in Rhode Island. As long as the national Republican brand is strongly defined by cultural conservatism, socially moderate, fiscal conservatives in Rhode Island will most likely continue to vote Democratic.
This dynamic has been apparent by this year’s race for Rhode Island First Congressional District. Brenden Doherty, a Republican, was running as a moderate and seemed to be leading the incumbent, Representative David Cicilline, a Democrat. But as the presidential race kicked into full gear, Ms. Moakley said, Mr. Cicilline was able to tie Mr. Doherty with Mr. Romney and the national Republican Party. The latest polls show Mr. Cicilline in front.
Mr. Doherty could still win, of course, but the national Republican brand is a millstone for Rhode Island Republicans, making it harder for them to gain office.
Rhode Island still has socially moderate, fiscally conservative voters. It just doesn’t have a partisan home for them.
So while the odds are against state Republicans ascending to power, there could be “an increasing move toward independent candidates,” Ms. Moakley said.
“Because,” she added, “there’s so many people with no place to go.”
Monday, October 15, 2012
Presidential Geography: Maine
The 2012 presidential election is a few weeks away and there is still time for ads, debates, campaign stops, and polls. While the race will likely come down to about a dozen states, each state truly does play some role and even safe states for either party are needed to guarantee victory in November.
The New York Times and Micah Cohen have been taking a state by state look at each state throughout the the weeks leading up to Election Day. Next up is Maine.
Maine:
The odds of an Electoral College tie are still very small, 1.3 percent according to the FiveThirtyEight forecast. But those odds have risen as Mitt Romney has narrowed President Obama’s lead. At the beginning of October the odds of a tie were 0.6 percent and several weeks before that they were 0.3 percent.
The closer the presidential race the more important each and every electoral vote becomes, including the single vote awarded to the winner of Maine’s Second Congressional District. Although Maine, over all, is reliably Democratic in presidential elections, it apportions its electoral votes by Congressional district, and the Second District is the more Republican-leaning of the two.
Can Mr. Romney carry Maine’s Second Congressional District? It’s not likely. But the political calculus in Maine is complicated by the state’s independent streak. Maine voters aren’t particularly attached to either main political party. Perhaps no state has been friendlier to third party candidates.
Maine was Ross Perot’s best state in 1992; Mr. Perot finished second with 30 percent of the vote, behind Bill Clinton but ahead of George Bush. Maine was also Mr. Perot’s best state in 1996, and one of Ralph Nader’s best states in 2000.
At the state level, Maine has had two independent governors since 1975 — James B. Longley and Angus King — and they almost elected another independent, Eliot Cutler, in 2010. This year, Maine seems poised to elect Mr. King to the Senate.
At the presidential level, no third-party candidate is especially strong this year, but Maine’s independent streak is rooted in its idiosyncrasies — neither party exactly fits the state’s political profile. Maine has a lot of swing voters, which leads to fairly schizophrenic election results. Maine is represented by two fairly liberal Democrats in the House, two moderate Republicans in the Senate and a Tea Party Republican in the governor’s mansion.
Maine has Republican characteristics: it is the whitest and oldest state in the nation. It’s also the second most rural state. At the state level, a Democrat has not won a majority in Maine since 1988, Mr. Strimling said (they have won pluralities).
On the other hand, Maine has gone blue in the last five presidential elections. It is mostly secular and relatively liberal on social issues. Maine was long a moderate Republican state, and went Democratic with the rest of New England and the Northeast as the Republican Party became more defined by cultural conservatism. Both Maine’s Republican senators, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, are abortion rights advocates.
The main political divide in Maine is between the south coast and the vast interior north of Augusta, roughly mirroring the geography of the state’s two Congressional districts.
The First District is anchored by Portland, the state’s largest city. Portland is liberal, with large young, professional and gay communities.
The Second District is relatively poor and more Republican-leaning. The Second District’s Piscataquis County was the only county Senator John McCain carried in New England in his 2008 presidential run.
Interior Maine is more socially conservative than the coast. In 2009, Maine voters overturned a law the legislature had passed legalizing same-sex marriage. Coastal Maine supported same-sex marriage 53 percent to 47 percent. But that was too small of a margin to overcome the interior, which opposed it, 61 percent to 39 percent.
About 3,500 Republicans were added to the Second District by redistricting, and the Democratic-leaning towns of Waterville and Winslow were moved into the First District. The Second District still has Lewiston, a heavily Franco-American, Catholic and working-class town. Lewiston “has been by and large Democratic, but it can swing different ways,” Ms. Fried said.
Maine’s Second District “is a touch more Republican than it was in 2008, but the change is really very minimal,” said David Wasserman, a redistricting expert at Cook Political Report.
The Bellwether: Oxford County
Oxford County, along Maine’s western border, is dotted by blue-collar mill towns like Rumford and full of Franco-American voters who skew Democratic.
Oxford County has matched the statewide vote in Maine within about one percentage point in the last three presidential elections.
The Bottom Line
Mr. Romney’s surge in national polls is as likely to manifest itself in Maine — as one of the most elastic states — as anywhere. For decades Maine was defined by moderate, Rockefeller Republicanism, and in Mr. Romney’s debate performance he tacked toward the ideological center. That move might have played particularly well with moderate Maine voters.
Still, Maine is solidly Democratic-leaning in presidential elections. And although the Second District is more conservative than the First District, neither is Republican leaning. According to the current FiveThirtyEight forecast, Mr. Obama is a 99 percent favorite in Maine over all, a 100 percent favorite in Maine’s First District and a 85 percent favorite in Maine’s Second District.
“If Romney does have a chance in Maine’s Second District,” Mr. Strimling said, “then Obama is in a lot of trouble.”
The New York Times and Micah Cohen have been taking a state by state look at each state throughout the the weeks leading up to Election Day. Next up is Maine.
Maine:
The odds of an Electoral College tie are still very small, 1.3 percent according to the FiveThirtyEight forecast. But those odds have risen as Mitt Romney has narrowed President Obama’s lead. At the beginning of October the odds of a tie were 0.6 percent and several weeks before that they were 0.3 percent.
The closer the presidential race the more important each and every electoral vote becomes, including the single vote awarded to the winner of Maine’s Second Congressional District. Although Maine, over all, is reliably Democratic in presidential elections, it apportions its electoral votes by Congressional district, and the Second District is the more Republican-leaning of the two.
Can Mr. Romney carry Maine’s Second Congressional District? It’s not likely. But the political calculus in Maine is complicated by the state’s independent streak. Maine voters aren’t particularly attached to either main political party. Perhaps no state has been friendlier to third party candidates.
Maine was Ross Perot’s best state in 1992; Mr. Perot finished second with 30 percent of the vote, behind Bill Clinton but ahead of George Bush. Maine was also Mr. Perot’s best state in 1996, and one of Ralph Nader’s best states in 2000.
At the state level, Maine has had two independent governors since 1975 — James B. Longley and Angus King — and they almost elected another independent, Eliot Cutler, in 2010. This year, Maine seems poised to elect Mr. King to the Senate.
At the presidential level, no third-party candidate is especially strong this year, but Maine’s independent streak is rooted in its idiosyncrasies — neither party exactly fits the state’s political profile. Maine has a lot of swing voters, which leads to fairly schizophrenic election results. Maine is represented by two fairly liberal Democrats in the House, two moderate Republicans in the Senate and a Tea Party Republican in the governor’s mansion.
Maine has Republican characteristics: it is the whitest and oldest state in the nation. It’s also the second most rural state. At the state level, a Democrat has not won a majority in Maine since 1988, Mr. Strimling said (they have won pluralities).
On the other hand, Maine has gone blue in the last five presidential elections. It is mostly secular and relatively liberal on social issues. Maine was long a moderate Republican state, and went Democratic with the rest of New England and the Northeast as the Republican Party became more defined by cultural conservatism. Both Maine’s Republican senators, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, are abortion rights advocates.
The main political divide in Maine is between the south coast and the vast interior north of Augusta, roughly mirroring the geography of the state’s two Congressional districts.
The First District is anchored by Portland, the state’s largest city. Portland is liberal, with large young, professional and gay communities.
The Second District is relatively poor and more Republican-leaning. The Second District’s Piscataquis County was the only county Senator John McCain carried in New England in his 2008 presidential run.
Interior Maine is more socially conservative than the coast. In 2009, Maine voters overturned a law the legislature had passed legalizing same-sex marriage. Coastal Maine supported same-sex marriage 53 percent to 47 percent. But that was too small of a margin to overcome the interior, which opposed it, 61 percent to 39 percent.
About 3,500 Republicans were added to the Second District by redistricting, and the Democratic-leaning towns of Waterville and Winslow were moved into the First District. The Second District still has Lewiston, a heavily Franco-American, Catholic and working-class town. Lewiston “has been by and large Democratic, but it can swing different ways,” Ms. Fried said.
Maine’s Second District “is a touch more Republican than it was in 2008, but the change is really very minimal,” said David Wasserman, a redistricting expert at Cook Political Report.
The Bellwether: Oxford County
Oxford County, along Maine’s western border, is dotted by blue-collar mill towns like Rumford and full of Franco-American voters who skew Democratic.
Oxford County has matched the statewide vote in Maine within about one percentage point in the last three presidential elections.
The Bottom Line
Mr. Romney’s surge in national polls is as likely to manifest itself in Maine — as one of the most elastic states — as anywhere. For decades Maine was defined by moderate, Rockefeller Republicanism, and in Mr. Romney’s debate performance he tacked toward the ideological center. That move might have played particularly well with moderate Maine voters.
Still, Maine is solidly Democratic-leaning in presidential elections. And although the Second District is more conservative than the First District, neither is Republican leaning. According to the current FiveThirtyEight forecast, Mr. Obama is a 99 percent favorite in Maine over all, a 100 percent favorite in Maine’s First District and a 85 percent favorite in Maine’s Second District.
“If Romney does have a chance in Maine’s Second District,” Mr. Strimling said, “then Obama is in a lot of trouble.”
Presidential Geography: North Dakota
The 2012 presidential election is a few weeks away and there is still time for ads, debates, campaign stops, and polls. While the race will likely come down to about a dozen states, each state truly does play some role and even safe states for either party are needed to guarantee victory in November.
The New York Times and Micah Cohen have been taking a state by state look at each state throughout the the weeks leading up to Election Day. Next up is North Dakota.
North Dakota:
The recipe for Democratic success in North Dakota, a Republican-leaning state, has long been the same: be personable, be moderate and champion the farm.
But a new ingredient, Bakken shale oil, has recently been added to the state’s partisan mix. The boom in oil in western North Dakota may solidify the Republican hold on the state, or it could stir voters to take another look at Democratic policies.
North Dakota is a conservative state. It has been carried by Democrats just five times in 30 presidential elections. The state’s electorate is relatively old, predominantly white and socially conservative.
Yet Democrats have been able to compete and even thrive here, just as they have in South Dakota. North Dakota, a place with agrarian roots and a small population (roughly 684,000), has been particularly friendly to Democrats in elections for the United States Senate and House. From 1987 to 2010, North Dakota had an all-Democratic Congressional delegation.
Historically, farmers — at the mercy of commodity prices, the railroads, the banks, the weather and more — would turn to collective action and government for protection and stability. That impulse helped give rise to the Nonpartisan League, which was founded in 1915 by a former Socialist Party organizer. The league called for a state-owned bank and a state-owned grain elevator and mill (North Dakota still has all three).
In 1956, the Nonpartisan League merged with the state’s Democratic Party, and for years North Dakota’s streak of agrarian populism allowed Democrats to win elections. The state’s recent Democratic politicians — Senator Kent Conrad, former Senator Byron Dorgan and former Representative Earl Pomeroy — were cut from this tradition.
Today, many farms in North Dakota are no longer tilled by solitary yeoman. Family farms have largely been replaced by giant agribusinesses, Mr. Jendrysik said, and “the populism among the farm class is not there as much as it used to be.”
As that populist streak has faded, so has the Democratic Party. In the last decade, Mr. Jendrysik said, Republicans have “pretty much wiped the Democrats out in the legislature, and in terms of statewide offices, they’ve pretty much wiped the Democrats out there too.” Mr. Pomeroy lost re-election in 2010. Mr. Dorgan retired. Mr. Conrad is retiring.
Democrats are now limited to competing in the cities of eastern North Dakota, in Fargo and Grand Forks, as well as the state’s American Indian reservations. Democrats win solid majorities in counties dominated by reservations, but in Grand Forks County and Cass County, where Fargo is, Mr. Obama managed only slim victories in 2008, of 5 and 7 percentage points respectively.
As you travel west, North Dakota becomes less populated and more conservative. Mr. McCain carried almost every county in western North Dakota, including the main population center in the west, Bismarck, with 61 percent of the vote.
The oil bonanza is taking place west and northwest of Bismarck, and the scale is staggering. This year alone, North Dakota overtook California and then Alaska to become the nation’s second biggest producer of petroleum, behind only Texas. Six years ago North Dakota ranked ninth.
The oil rush has had a profound effect on the state. Incomes have surged in oil-producing counties, and the state’s general fund is flush with cash from new tax revenues. North Dakota was left virtually untouched by the recession; the state’s unemployment rate steadily fell throughout. In August, the last month for which data is available, North Dakota had the nation’s lowest jobless rate, 3 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
But the influx of oil workers has strained infrastructure. Housing is in short supply, giant trucks are tearing up roads and pollution has become a concern.
The Bellwether: Richland County
Richland County, in the southeast corner of North Dakota, has been an imperfect bellwether in the last three president elections. It was two percentage points more Democratic-leaning than the state in 2008. But it was a bit more Republican-leaning than the state in 2004 and 2000.
The Bottom Line
Mr. Romney is a 100 percent favorite in North Dakota, according to the current FiveThirtyEight forecast, and the presidential race is unlikely to receive much attention there. Instead, North Dakota’s Senate race is center stage, and it may provide an early clue as to how the Bakken oil rush will influence North Dakota politics.
Both Representative Rick Berg, a Republican, and Democrat Heidi Heitkamp have come out in favor of across-the-board energy development, including the Keystone pipeline.
But the perception that national Democrats are hostile to nonrenewable energy sources has helped Republicans in other energy-producing states like West Virginia and Wyoming. And it may in North Dakota. Mr. Berg has tried to tie Ms. Heitkamp to national Democrats, Mr. Jendrysik said, and “Heitkamp is basically running away from the national Democratic Party.”
On the other hand, there are energy issues more favorable to the Democratic brand. The oil rush — specifically hydraulic fracturing and the flaring of natural gas — has raised environmental concerns, and “a lot of North Dakotans are proud of their environmental heritage and the land around them,” Mr. Harsell said.
In addition, a distrust of outsiders that was baked into the state by the experience of farmers could be reawakened. “Big Oil is owned by outside interests,” Mr. Harsell said.
How North Dakotans weigh the pros and cons of an oil-saturated economy will partly dictate the effect the Bakken rush has on state politics. This year’s senate race may provide an early indication whether North Dakotan Democrats can still maintain identities distinct from national Democrats.
According to the current FiveThirtyEight forecast, the Republican, Mr. Berg, is a 77 percent favorite.
The New York Times and Micah Cohen have been taking a state by state look at each state throughout the the weeks leading up to Election Day. Next up is North Dakota.
North Dakota:
The recipe for Democratic success in North Dakota, a Republican-leaning state, has long been the same: be personable, be moderate and champion the farm.
But a new ingredient, Bakken shale oil, has recently been added to the state’s partisan mix. The boom in oil in western North Dakota may solidify the Republican hold on the state, or it could stir voters to take another look at Democratic policies.
North Dakota is a conservative state. It has been carried by Democrats just five times in 30 presidential elections. The state’s electorate is relatively old, predominantly white and socially conservative.
Yet Democrats have been able to compete and even thrive here, just as they have in South Dakota. North Dakota, a place with agrarian roots and a small population (roughly 684,000), has been particularly friendly to Democrats in elections for the United States Senate and House. From 1987 to 2010, North Dakota had an all-Democratic Congressional delegation.
Historically, farmers — at the mercy of commodity prices, the railroads, the banks, the weather and more — would turn to collective action and government for protection and stability. That impulse helped give rise to the Nonpartisan League, which was founded in 1915 by a former Socialist Party organizer. The league called for a state-owned bank and a state-owned grain elevator and mill (North Dakota still has all three).
In 1956, the Nonpartisan League merged with the state’s Democratic Party, and for years North Dakota’s streak of agrarian populism allowed Democrats to win elections. The state’s recent Democratic politicians — Senator Kent Conrad, former Senator Byron Dorgan and former Representative Earl Pomeroy — were cut from this tradition.
Today, many farms in North Dakota are no longer tilled by solitary yeoman. Family farms have largely been replaced by giant agribusinesses, Mr. Jendrysik said, and “the populism among the farm class is not there as much as it used to be.”
As that populist streak has faded, so has the Democratic Party. In the last decade, Mr. Jendrysik said, Republicans have “pretty much wiped the Democrats out in the legislature, and in terms of statewide offices, they’ve pretty much wiped the Democrats out there too.” Mr. Pomeroy lost re-election in 2010. Mr. Dorgan retired. Mr. Conrad is retiring.
Democrats are now limited to competing in the cities of eastern North Dakota, in Fargo and Grand Forks, as well as the state’s American Indian reservations. Democrats win solid majorities in counties dominated by reservations, but in Grand Forks County and Cass County, where Fargo is, Mr. Obama managed only slim victories in 2008, of 5 and 7 percentage points respectively.
As you travel west, North Dakota becomes less populated and more conservative. Mr. McCain carried almost every county in western North Dakota, including the main population center in the west, Bismarck, with 61 percent of the vote.
The oil bonanza is taking place west and northwest of Bismarck, and the scale is staggering. This year alone, North Dakota overtook California and then Alaska to become the nation’s second biggest producer of petroleum, behind only Texas. Six years ago North Dakota ranked ninth.
The oil rush has had a profound effect on the state. Incomes have surged in oil-producing counties, and the state’s general fund is flush with cash from new tax revenues. North Dakota was left virtually untouched by the recession; the state’s unemployment rate steadily fell throughout. In August, the last month for which data is available, North Dakota had the nation’s lowest jobless rate, 3 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
But the influx of oil workers has strained infrastructure. Housing is in short supply, giant trucks are tearing up roads and pollution has become a concern.
The Bellwether: Richland County
Richland County, in the southeast corner of North Dakota, has been an imperfect bellwether in the last three president elections. It was two percentage points more Democratic-leaning than the state in 2008. But it was a bit more Republican-leaning than the state in 2004 and 2000.
The Bottom Line
Mr. Romney is a 100 percent favorite in North Dakota, according to the current FiveThirtyEight forecast, and the presidential race is unlikely to receive much attention there. Instead, North Dakota’s Senate race is center stage, and it may provide an early clue as to how the Bakken oil rush will influence North Dakota politics.
Both Representative Rick Berg, a Republican, and Democrat Heidi Heitkamp have come out in favor of across-the-board energy development, including the Keystone pipeline.
But the perception that national Democrats are hostile to nonrenewable energy sources has helped Republicans in other energy-producing states like West Virginia and Wyoming. And it may in North Dakota. Mr. Berg has tried to tie Ms. Heitkamp to national Democrats, Mr. Jendrysik said, and “Heitkamp is basically running away from the national Democratic Party.”
On the other hand, there are energy issues more favorable to the Democratic brand. The oil rush — specifically hydraulic fracturing and the flaring of natural gas — has raised environmental concerns, and “a lot of North Dakotans are proud of their environmental heritage and the land around them,” Mr. Harsell said.
In addition, a distrust of outsiders that was baked into the state by the experience of farmers could be reawakened. “Big Oil is owned by outside interests,” Mr. Harsell said.
How North Dakotans weigh the pros and cons of an oil-saturated economy will partly dictate the effect the Bakken rush has on state politics. This year’s senate race may provide an early indication whether North Dakotan Democrats can still maintain identities distinct from national Democrats.
According to the current FiveThirtyEight forecast, the Republican, Mr. Berg, is a 77 percent favorite.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
