The 2012 presidential election is a little more than three months away and there is still a lot of 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 are going to take a state by state look at each state throughout the next few months. Next up is Louisiana.
Louisiana:
When 26-year-old Walker Hines announced that he was switching his party affiliation to Republican from Democrat in 2010, he gave the Republican Party a majority in a Louisiana chamber for the first time since Reconstruction.
The young Mr. Hines’s decision was emblematic of Louisiana’s political transformation: it had become as red as its famous crawfish.
Much like its Gulf Coast brethren, Louisiana has flipped to a solid red state from a solid blue state over the past 20 years. The most recent FiveThirtyEight projections give Mitt Romney a 99.7 percent chance of carrying the state, and Republican presidential candidates have carried Louisiana easily since George W. Bush. In 2008, Louisiana was one of four Republican states in the country to vote more in favor of John McCain (58.6 percent) than Mr. Bush in 2004 (56.8 percent).
But while Louisiana votes consistently with the Deep South, its conservative engine is made up of slightly different parts, some of which, when viewed in isolation, falsely appears to make Louisiana more pink, or purple, than red.
Of the roughly 2.9 million registered voters in the state, 1.4 million are registered as Democrats, while about 789,000 are registered Republicans and another 694,000 registered as “other.” Even if every “other” voter sided with the Republicans, it would appear that Louisiana is a hotly contested state. So how is every major state office held by a Republican?
The answer to the deceptive voter registration numbers lie, in part, with Louisiana’s unique “jungle primary” system used in local, state and congressional elections, but not presidential elections. As in the presidential electoral system in France, all candidates for an office in Louisiana run at once without a separate party-specific primary. If any one candidate receives more than 50 percent of the vote, the election is over. If not, the top two face off in a runoff election a month later. Voters are not required to register with a party to participate in these elections, removing a main incentive for registering with either the Democrat or Republican parties.
“The minimal effort it takes to register with a party just isn’t worth it in Louisiana,” Mr. Parent said. “And a lot of older voters who once registered as Democrats, and I’m talking those 50 and over, now vote nearly exclusively Republican.”
In 2008, older voters showed up strong for Mr. McCain, with 65 percent of those in the 50-64 age range and 69 percent of those 65 and over casting a Republican ballot.
The “jungle primary” system also has the potential to depress voter turnout, which in turn can lead to misleading exit polls and even some occasional surprise upsets. When voters are forced to return to the polls in the case of a runoff, many won’t come back if the issues that had initially drawn them to the polls were already decided.
“Say there was a hotly contested congressional primary that was decided in the first election, and then a lot of local bills and state races went to a runoff, I don’t think many people would be coming back out to the polls,” Mr. Parent said.
Electoral system aside, Louisiana became a Republican stronghold because of one main demographic that has shifted through the years: the Catholic vote.
Louisiana has a large Catholic population, setting it apart from its Gulf Coast neighbors. In the 2012 Republican primary, Catholics made up 36 percent of the voters in the primaries. While Catholics weren’t tallied in Mississippi or Alabama exit polls in 2012, they accounted for only 8 percent in Mississippiand 5 percent in Alabama in 2008.
The Catholic vote is strongest in the predominantly Cajun southwestern part of the state known as Acadiana. Catholic voters once made up a large part of the “swing” vote in Louisiana, before social issues like abortion and same-sex marriage became part of the political conversation. In 1992, 41 percent of all voters in the state identified themselves as Catholics, and 47 percent of Catholics voted for Bill Clinton. By 2008, the vote had switched, with 70 percent of Catholics voting for Mr. McCain.
“Cajun Catholics are no longer moderately swing votes at all,” Mr. Parent said. “They are becoming as reliably Republican as Southern Baptists.”
However, this is not to say that the other regions of Louisiana hold no sway over elections. As FiveThirtyEight explained in its primary breakdown of Louisiana’s political geography, the northern region of Louisiana is regarded as the most conservative region of the state, essentially behaving electorally as an extension of the states it borders: Arkansas to the north and Mississippi to the east. The southeastern part of the state tends to be evenly matched. While New Orleans and Baton Rouge are the state’s Democratic strongholds, the surrounding suburbs are some of the most consistently Republican areas in the state.
The Bellwether: De Soto Parish
In the northwest corner of the state, south of Shreveport, De Soto Parish best reflects the current and continuing shift to the right of Louisiana. It has voted within three percentage points of the state margin in each of the last three presidential elections. It has a slightly larger black population (40 percent) than the state as a whole (32 percent), and with its proximity to Shreveport, has a blend of suburban Republican ideologies with Southern Baptist social conservatism.
The Bottom Line
Mr. Romney doesn’t need to pick Gov. Bobby Jindal as a running mate to win Louisiana’s eight electoral votes. The state will be called for the Republican candidate mere seconds after polls close on Nov. 6. Any Democratic hopes for winning the state disappeared in the 1990s.
And major disasters in the state have only kicked the Democrats further down. In response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, President Obama placed a moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, which created a sense of resentment toward the president in Louisiana, said Mr. Mann, a professor of mass communication at L.S.U.
“I don’t hear anyone talk as bad about BP as they do about the moratorium,” he said. “People in Louisiana, Democrats and Republicans, saw it as an intrusion into their way of life.”
Where the oil spill brought resentment, Hurricane Katrina brought devastation. New Orleans lost 140,845 residents, a drop of 29 percent from 2000 to 2010. The majority of that loss can be attributed to the storm. The decrease in population was also a reason for Louisiana’s losing a Congressional seat and an electoral vote in 2012.
“Katrina really did accelerate a lot of the changes that we have seen come about, like the Republican control of every statewide elected office,” Mr. Mann said. “The shift to the right was already occurring, but Katrina may have been the tipping point.”
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Monday, July 30, 2012
Presidential Geography: New York
The 2012 presidential election is a little more than three months away and there is still a lot of 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 are going to take a state by state look at each state throughout the next few months. Next up is New York.
New York:
New York’s Democrats are underachievers.
Sure, Barack Obama won the 2008 election in New York with 62.2 percent of the vote – behind only Hawaii, Vermont and Washington, D.C. – and Andrew M. Cuomo took the governor’s mansion in 2010 with 62.6 percent.
But in a state where almost half of the voters are registered Democrats, giving them a 2-to-1 advantage over registered Republicans, is that really such an accomplishment?
To understand the state’s politics, it makes sense to divide New York into three regions: New York City, the downstate suburbs (Nassau and Suffolk Counties on Long Island, Westchester and Rockland Counties just north of the city), and the sprawling, diverse upstate region.
As far as Democratic performance goes, New York City, the state’s liberal economic engine, is the biggest slacker of all. A city that has not voted for a Republican for president since Calvin Coolidge in 1924 has not elected a Democratic mayor since 1989. The five boroughs also don’t vote their weight: As Mr. Gyory notes, in 2008 New York City made up about 42 percent of the state’s population, 38 percent of its registered voters and 34 percent of the vote – and that figure actually shows improvement over previous years.
Upstate New York, on the other hand, contributes 42 percent to 46 percent of the vote, despite having about 36 percent of the population and 39 percent of the registered voters, Mr. Gyory said. The region includes vast rural tracts, including the northernmost stretches of Appalachia, as well as dying manufacturing towns and the state’s capital. Upstate’s medium-size cities, like Rochester and Buffalo, fit a Rust Belt profile – people even say “pop” instead of “soda.”
“A Democrat has a problem if he or she cannot carry at least 40 percent of the vote upstate,” Mr. Gyory said. But 45 percent, he added, can almost guarantee a victory.
It’s hard to blame New York’s Democrats for resting on their laurels. The last time a Republican presidential candidate won the state was Ronald Reagan’s landslide re-election in 1984, and the last Republican to win a statewide race was Gov. George Pataki, who was elected to a third term in 2002.
With the careers of Mr. Pataki and Rudolph W. Giuliani apparently over, the New York Republican Party has no standard-bearer. Republicans’ small registration numbers hamper their ability to draw in undecided voters, because the conservative primary electorate tends to choose candidates well to the right of the state’s mainstream.
"It’s getting bluer because the Republicans are not giving them much of a run for their money,” Mr. Gyory said.
Case in point: In 2010, an energized Tea Party-infused Republican electorate chose Carl P. Paladino, a Buffalo businessman known more for his eccentricity than for his political acumen, over former Representative Rick A. Lazio of Long Island. (Earlier in the campaign, the head of the state Republican Party was so despondent about the party’s chances that he tried to recruit a Democrat to switch parties and run against Mr. Cuomo on the Republican ticket.)
Mr. Cuomo beat Mr. Paladino by almost 30 points, and the state’s Democratic United States senators won by similar margins. But as Mr. Greenberg pointed out, the Democrat running for attorney general won by 11 points, and Thomas P. DiNapoli won re-election to the comptroller’s office by only 2.5 points.
“So we clearly have swing voters,” Mr. Greenberg said.
But without moderates, Republicans might not be able to draw them in.
“In gubernatorial years, New York is a Democrat, not a liberal, state,” Mr. Gyory said. But he warns that if Republicans “continue to not run good candidates, they won’t be able to take advantage of that distinction.”
The Bellwethers
According to Mr. Greenberg, even the “worst Democrat” would get 40 percent of the vote, and his or her terrible Republican rival would get about 25 percent. An additional 15 percent of voters are likely to favor Democrats in most cases, he said, so only about 20 percent of the electorate is truly up for grabs.
Where do these swing voters live? Westchester County is a key battleground. Immediately north of New York City, Westchester is one of the most ethnically diverse counties in the state, with growing Hispanic and Asian communities clustered in cities like Yonkers and New Rochelle. Efforts to integrate minorities into the county’s graceful, affluent bedroom communities along the Hudson River with affordable-housing grants havecaused tension, and the moves have put County Manager Rob Astorino – one of the few rising Republican stars – in the spotlight.
Mr. Greenberg looks to Westchester and to Erie County, where Buffalo is situated, to determine a Democrat’s chances.
“As a Democrat, you do what you’re supposed to do in the city, you carry Westchester and Erie, you’re going to win,” he said. Republicans have a more daunting task.
“If a Republican is going to be competitive in New York State, they’ve got to carry the suburbs, they’ve got to carry upstate,” Mr. Greenberg said. Republicans don’t have to win upstate by a high margin, he added, but they need to amass “close to 60 percent” in the suburbs.
That’s likely to be increasingly difficult. Though they once leaned Republican, Long Island’s two counties are increasingly purple. Almost a third of Long Island’s population is nonwhite, a dramatic shift. In Westchester, that figure is 35 percent.
The other suburbs around Albany, Rochester, Buffalo and Syracuse are also competitive, and there are even some swing voters in New York City, including the white ethnic enclaves of the boroughs outside Manhattan, including Staten Island, which is home to the new 11th Congressional District, one of the most fiercely contested in the state.
The Bottom Line
Making matters worse for Republicans, people from the state’s more liberal areas are moving upstate. Northern Westchester through Saratoga, along the Hudson, has the state’s highest rate of growth, according to Mr. Gyory. Many of the migrants are coming from New York City, drawn in particular by an emerging high-tech sector. (Mr. Obama visited the University at Albany’s College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering in May.) The result, Mr. Gyory said, resembles “what’s going on in North Carolina — it’s less predictably Republican than it was.”
This isn’t to say that there are no Republican bastions. On the contrary, Republicans hold a majority in the State Senate, with upstate’s many rural districts sending conservatives to Albany.
“Democrats can’t win upstate outside of major urban areas,” Mr. Greenberg said. And down the ballot, “most of upstate is actually in play,” he said.
A shrinking population cost New York two House seats, bringing the number to 27. When it appeared that his district would be split, one upstate Democrat retired, and several of the redrawn districts incorporated greater shares of Republicans. But the Republican candidates will not have much help from the state and national parties. “They’re not going to contest for the presidential; they don’t have a strong Senate candidate,” Mr. Gyory said. “They don’t give a lot of air cover down-ballot.”
As minorities and young people move to swing districts, and as New York City begins to vote more in proportion with its share of the population, the long-term trends don’t look good for Republicans. But New York’s cycles are slow. 30“In New York, the party pendulum doesn’t swing in four- and eight-year cycles,” Mr. Gyory said. “It tends to swing in 16-to-20-year cycles.”
The New York Times and Micah Cohen are going to take a state by state look at each state throughout the next few months. Next up is New York.
New York:
New York’s Democrats are underachievers.
Sure, Barack Obama won the 2008 election in New York with 62.2 percent of the vote – behind only Hawaii, Vermont and Washington, D.C. – and Andrew M. Cuomo took the governor’s mansion in 2010 with 62.6 percent.
But in a state where almost half of the voters are registered Democrats, giving them a 2-to-1 advantage over registered Republicans, is that really such an accomplishment?
To understand the state’s politics, it makes sense to divide New York into three regions: New York City, the downstate suburbs (Nassau and Suffolk Counties on Long Island, Westchester and Rockland Counties just north of the city), and the sprawling, diverse upstate region.
As far as Democratic performance goes, New York City, the state’s liberal economic engine, is the biggest slacker of all. A city that has not voted for a Republican for president since Calvin Coolidge in 1924 has not elected a Democratic mayor since 1989. The five boroughs also don’t vote their weight: As Mr. Gyory notes, in 2008 New York City made up about 42 percent of the state’s population, 38 percent of its registered voters and 34 percent of the vote – and that figure actually shows improvement over previous years.
Upstate New York, on the other hand, contributes 42 percent to 46 percent of the vote, despite having about 36 percent of the population and 39 percent of the registered voters, Mr. Gyory said. The region includes vast rural tracts, including the northernmost stretches of Appalachia, as well as dying manufacturing towns and the state’s capital. Upstate’s medium-size cities, like Rochester and Buffalo, fit a Rust Belt profile – people even say “pop” instead of “soda.”
“A Democrat has a problem if he or she cannot carry at least 40 percent of the vote upstate,” Mr. Gyory said. But 45 percent, he added, can almost guarantee a victory.
It’s hard to blame New York’s Democrats for resting on their laurels. The last time a Republican presidential candidate won the state was Ronald Reagan’s landslide re-election in 1984, and the last Republican to win a statewide race was Gov. George Pataki, who was elected to a third term in 2002.
With the careers of Mr. Pataki and Rudolph W. Giuliani apparently over, the New York Republican Party has no standard-bearer. Republicans’ small registration numbers hamper their ability to draw in undecided voters, because the conservative primary electorate tends to choose candidates well to the right of the state’s mainstream.
"It’s getting bluer because the Republicans are not giving them much of a run for their money,” Mr. Gyory said.
Case in point: In 2010, an energized Tea Party-infused Republican electorate chose Carl P. Paladino, a Buffalo businessman known more for his eccentricity than for his political acumen, over former Representative Rick A. Lazio of Long Island. (Earlier in the campaign, the head of the state Republican Party was so despondent about the party’s chances that he tried to recruit a Democrat to switch parties and run against Mr. Cuomo on the Republican ticket.)
Mr. Cuomo beat Mr. Paladino by almost 30 points, and the state’s Democratic United States senators won by similar margins. But as Mr. Greenberg pointed out, the Democrat running for attorney general won by 11 points, and Thomas P. DiNapoli won re-election to the comptroller’s office by only 2.5 points.
“So we clearly have swing voters,” Mr. Greenberg said.
But without moderates, Republicans might not be able to draw them in.
“In gubernatorial years, New York is a Democrat, not a liberal, state,” Mr. Gyory said. But he warns that if Republicans “continue to not run good candidates, they won’t be able to take advantage of that distinction.”
The Bellwethers
According to Mr. Greenberg, even the “worst Democrat” would get 40 percent of the vote, and his or her terrible Republican rival would get about 25 percent. An additional 15 percent of voters are likely to favor Democrats in most cases, he said, so only about 20 percent of the electorate is truly up for grabs.
Where do these swing voters live? Westchester County is a key battleground. Immediately north of New York City, Westchester is one of the most ethnically diverse counties in the state, with growing Hispanic and Asian communities clustered in cities like Yonkers and New Rochelle. Efforts to integrate minorities into the county’s graceful, affluent bedroom communities along the Hudson River with affordable-housing grants havecaused tension, and the moves have put County Manager Rob Astorino – one of the few rising Republican stars – in the spotlight.
Mr. Greenberg looks to Westchester and to Erie County, where Buffalo is situated, to determine a Democrat’s chances.
“As a Democrat, you do what you’re supposed to do in the city, you carry Westchester and Erie, you’re going to win,” he said. Republicans have a more daunting task.
“If a Republican is going to be competitive in New York State, they’ve got to carry the suburbs, they’ve got to carry upstate,” Mr. Greenberg said. Republicans don’t have to win upstate by a high margin, he added, but they need to amass “close to 60 percent” in the suburbs.
That’s likely to be increasingly difficult. Though they once leaned Republican, Long Island’s two counties are increasingly purple. Almost a third of Long Island’s population is nonwhite, a dramatic shift. In Westchester, that figure is 35 percent.
The other suburbs around Albany, Rochester, Buffalo and Syracuse are also competitive, and there are even some swing voters in New York City, including the white ethnic enclaves of the boroughs outside Manhattan, including Staten Island, which is home to the new 11th Congressional District, one of the most fiercely contested in the state.
The Bottom Line
Making matters worse for Republicans, people from the state’s more liberal areas are moving upstate. Northern Westchester through Saratoga, along the Hudson, has the state’s highest rate of growth, according to Mr. Gyory. Many of the migrants are coming from New York City, drawn in particular by an emerging high-tech sector. (Mr. Obama visited the University at Albany’s College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering in May.) The result, Mr. Gyory said, resembles “what’s going on in North Carolina — it’s less predictably Republican than it was.”
This isn’t to say that there are no Republican bastions. On the contrary, Republicans hold a majority in the State Senate, with upstate’s many rural districts sending conservatives to Albany.
“Democrats can’t win upstate outside of major urban areas,” Mr. Greenberg said. And down the ballot, “most of upstate is actually in play,” he said.
A shrinking population cost New York two House seats, bringing the number to 27. When it appeared that his district would be split, one upstate Democrat retired, and several of the redrawn districts incorporated greater shares of Republicans. But the Republican candidates will not have much help from the state and national parties. “They’re not going to contest for the presidential; they don’t have a strong Senate candidate,” Mr. Gyory said. “They don’t give a lot of air cover down-ballot.”
As minorities and young people move to swing districts, and as New York City begins to vote more in proportion with its share of the population, the long-term trends don’t look good for Republicans. But New York’s cycles are slow. 30“In New York, the party pendulum doesn’t swing in four- and eight-year cycles,” Mr. Gyory said. “It tends to swing in 16-to-20-year cycles.”
Monday, July 23, 2012
Presidential Geography: Minnesota
The 2012 presidential election is less than four months away and there is still a lot of 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 are going to take a state by state look at each state throughout the next few months. Next up is Minnesota.
Minnesota:
By most accounts, Tim Pawlenty, the former governor of Minnesota, is one of the top names on Mitt Romney’s list of potential vice-presidential nominees. Mr. Pawlenty is liked, though perhaps not loved, by the main pillars of the Republican Party — social conservatives, the Tea Party and establishment Republicans — making him a safe choice for a risk-averse Romney campaign.
But if Mr. Romney is looking for a vice-presidential nominee that might also bring along votes from their home state, Mr. Pawlenty might be a poor choice compared to someone like Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, who comes from a state that is a genuine tossup. The home-state effect of a vice-presidential nominee can be overrated in any case, but Minnesota has the longest streak of voting for Democratic presidential candidates than any other state in the nation.
Still, like many of the states we have profiled, partisan allegiance in presidential voting can mask a more nuanced picture on the ground. In four elections since 1972, the Republican presidential candidate has come within 4 percentage points of winning Minnesota. And in the early 2000s, Republicans gained ground in the state. Enough ground, in fact, that the Republican Party held its national convention in St. Paul in 2008.
“It’s a mistake to think of Minnesota as blue rather than red, and even a mistake to talk about Minnesota as purple,” Mr. Jacobs said, “Minnesota is really more polka-dotted.”
The polka-dot pattern is exemplified by the Fourth, Fifth and SixthCongressional districts. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress and a co-chairman of the Progressive Caucus, represents Minnesota’s Fifth District, which includes Minneapolis. The bulk of the Democratic votes in the state come from this area, along with St. Paul in the Fourth District.
The Sixth District, which is adjacent to the Fourth and Fifth, is represented by Michele Bachmann, the conservative firebrand. Mrs. Bachmann’s district along with the Second District, to the south of Minneapolis and St. Paul, encompasses most of the suburban and exurban communities surrounding the Twin Cities. The two districts are the anchor of Republican support in Minnesota.
The rest of the state is less densely populated. North-central and northeast Minnesota, the Iron Range, are rural, blue collar and tend to vote Democratic. Unions are well organized in the northeast, and can still flex political muscle. The northwest is more rural and about evenly split in terms of partisan allegiance.
The southeastern part of the state includes the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, an area which was traditionally Republican but has become more competitive. And as Hispanics have moved into southern Minnesota to work for agribusinesses, the southeast has become a swing region. The farm counties in the southwest have been losing residents, but those who remain are, for the most part, very socially and fiscally conservative.
The Bellwether: Blue Earth County
Look to Blue Earth County, anchored by Mankato, for an approximate measure of the final statewide margin between Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney on Nov. 6. Blue Earth, an area with rich farmland that produces soybeans, corn and hogs, has roughly matched the final vote of the state in the past three presidential elections.
The Bottom Line
Mr. Romney does have a narrow path to victory in Minnesota. The FiveThirtyEight model currently gives him a 7 percent chance of carrying the state. In 2000 and 2004, support for the Democratic Party (known locally as Democratic Farm Labor Party) eroded somewhat among traditional Democratic voters in the Iron Range, an area that tends to be more socially conservative. Unease with environmental and gun control regulations helped Republicans make inroads in northern Minnesota. In 2010, Democrats lost the Eighth District, which covers this area, for the first time since 1946, when Chip Cravaack, a Republican, defeated veteran Representative Jim Oberstar.
At the same time, many Twin Cities suburbs and exurbs have become more Republican, moving the overall balance of the state a few percentage points toward the right.
But the 2012 election cycle might not be the best time for a Republican to try for an upset in Minnesota against an incumbent president. First, Minnesota’s economy is positively robust compared to the rest of the nation. The state’s unemployment rate is 5.6 percent.
Second, the Minnesota Republican Party is essentially in shambles, Mr. Jacobs said. Struggling with financial problems, the party faced eviction from its headquarters. “It’s been kind of a laughingstock for the last year,” Mr. Jacobs said.
In late 2011, the Republican majority leader of the state senate, Amy Koch,resigned after allegations surfaced that she was having an inappropriate relationship with a staff member. And the state’s Republican Party was justfined $33,000 for accepting illegal contributions in 2010.
Lastly, the issues that helped Republicans make inroads in the Iron Range area may have lost their potency. Mr. Oberstar’s loss seems to have energized Democratic activists in the area, Mr. Jacobs said.
But can a Romney-Pawlenty ticket overcome those issues and pull Minnesota into reach?
A survey of likely voters in Minnesota by Public Policy Polling from early June tested several Republican tickets and found that a Romney-Pawlenty matchup was the most popular. But Romney-Pawlenty still trailed Obama-Biden by 11 percentage points.
The New York Times and Micah Cohen are going to take a state by state look at each state throughout the next few months. Next up is Minnesota.
Minnesota:
By most accounts, Tim Pawlenty, the former governor of Minnesota, is one of the top names on Mitt Romney’s list of potential vice-presidential nominees. Mr. Pawlenty is liked, though perhaps not loved, by the main pillars of the Republican Party — social conservatives, the Tea Party and establishment Republicans — making him a safe choice for a risk-averse Romney campaign.
But if Mr. Romney is looking for a vice-presidential nominee that might also bring along votes from their home state, Mr. Pawlenty might be a poor choice compared to someone like Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, who comes from a state that is a genuine tossup. The home-state effect of a vice-presidential nominee can be overrated in any case, but Minnesota has the longest streak of voting for Democratic presidential candidates than any other state in the nation.
Still, like many of the states we have profiled, partisan allegiance in presidential voting can mask a more nuanced picture on the ground. In four elections since 1972, the Republican presidential candidate has come within 4 percentage points of winning Minnesota. And in the early 2000s, Republicans gained ground in the state. Enough ground, in fact, that the Republican Party held its national convention in St. Paul in 2008.
“It’s a mistake to think of Minnesota as blue rather than red, and even a mistake to talk about Minnesota as purple,” Mr. Jacobs said, “Minnesota is really more polka-dotted.”
The polka-dot pattern is exemplified by the Fourth, Fifth and SixthCongressional districts. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress and a co-chairman of the Progressive Caucus, represents Minnesota’s Fifth District, which includes Minneapolis. The bulk of the Democratic votes in the state come from this area, along with St. Paul in the Fourth District.
The Sixth District, which is adjacent to the Fourth and Fifth, is represented by Michele Bachmann, the conservative firebrand. Mrs. Bachmann’s district along with the Second District, to the south of Minneapolis and St. Paul, encompasses most of the suburban and exurban communities surrounding the Twin Cities. The two districts are the anchor of Republican support in Minnesota.
The rest of the state is less densely populated. North-central and northeast Minnesota, the Iron Range, are rural, blue collar and tend to vote Democratic. Unions are well organized in the northeast, and can still flex political muscle. The northwest is more rural and about evenly split in terms of partisan allegiance.
The southeastern part of the state includes the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, an area which was traditionally Republican but has become more competitive. And as Hispanics have moved into southern Minnesota to work for agribusinesses, the southeast has become a swing region. The farm counties in the southwest have been losing residents, but those who remain are, for the most part, very socially and fiscally conservative.
The Bellwether: Blue Earth County
Look to Blue Earth County, anchored by Mankato, for an approximate measure of the final statewide margin between Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney on Nov. 6. Blue Earth, an area with rich farmland that produces soybeans, corn and hogs, has roughly matched the final vote of the state in the past three presidential elections.
The Bottom Line
Mr. Romney does have a narrow path to victory in Minnesota. The FiveThirtyEight model currently gives him a 7 percent chance of carrying the state. In 2000 and 2004, support for the Democratic Party (known locally as Democratic Farm Labor Party) eroded somewhat among traditional Democratic voters in the Iron Range, an area that tends to be more socially conservative. Unease with environmental and gun control regulations helped Republicans make inroads in northern Minnesota. In 2010, Democrats lost the Eighth District, which covers this area, for the first time since 1946, when Chip Cravaack, a Republican, defeated veteran Representative Jim Oberstar.
At the same time, many Twin Cities suburbs and exurbs have become more Republican, moving the overall balance of the state a few percentage points toward the right.
But the 2012 election cycle might not be the best time for a Republican to try for an upset in Minnesota against an incumbent president. First, Minnesota’s economy is positively robust compared to the rest of the nation. The state’s unemployment rate is 5.6 percent.
Second, the Minnesota Republican Party is essentially in shambles, Mr. Jacobs said. Struggling with financial problems, the party faced eviction from its headquarters. “It’s been kind of a laughingstock for the last year,” Mr. Jacobs said.
In late 2011, the Republican majority leader of the state senate, Amy Koch,resigned after allegations surfaced that she was having an inappropriate relationship with a staff member. And the state’s Republican Party was justfined $33,000 for accepting illegal contributions in 2010.
Lastly, the issues that helped Republicans make inroads in the Iron Range area may have lost their potency. Mr. Oberstar’s loss seems to have energized Democratic activists in the area, Mr. Jacobs said.
But can a Romney-Pawlenty ticket overcome those issues and pull Minnesota into reach?
A survey of likely voters in Minnesota by Public Policy Polling from early June tested several Republican tickets and found that a Romney-Pawlenty matchup was the most popular. But Romney-Pawlenty still trailed Obama-Biden by 11 percentage points.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Presidential Geography: New Jersey
The 2012 presidential election is less than four months away and there is still a lot of 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 are going to take a state by state look at each state throughout the next few months. Next up is New Jersey.
New Jersey:
Optimistic Republicans might be forgiven for daydreaming about turning New Jersey into a red state and getting its 14 electoral votes. For the past 20 years, the state has been reliably Democratic in presidential elections, yet it has a number of characteristics that would suggest at least an openness to favoring Republicans.
New Jersey has a fairly popular Republican governor, Chris Christie. Its Congressional delegation is evenly split, with six Democrats and six Republicans. Moreover, New Jersey is the fourth most affluent state in the nation, with a median household income of $63,540. New Jersey voters also come overwhelmingly from Republican-friendly territory: the suburbs. In 2008, 88 percent of New Jersey voters said they lived in suburban communities, according to exit polls.
And it was not long ago that New Jersey was a reliably Republican state in presidential elections. Republican presidential candidates carried it from 1968 to 1988, overperforming their national popular vote in every election.
But, although the Republican Party in New Jersey is somewhat stronger than in other Northeastern states, the dynamics shaping the state’s politics are more likely to continue moving the state to the left.
States often shift politically for two main reasons: migrants and immigrants change the demographic makeup of the state, or a change in policy causes a rift between a party and its voters.
In New Jersey, both have occurred, and both have benefited Democrats. First, New Jersey became more ethnically diverse, and minority groups that favor Democrats have become a larger and larger share of the vote. And second, as cultural, rather than fiscal issues increasingly defined the national Republican Party, moderate Republicans and independents in New Jersey left the party in elections for national offices.
The second trend is why miles and miles of New Jersey suburbs have translated into underwhelming Republican support. New Jersey Republicanism is exemplified by well-educated, wealthy and most of all, socially moderate voters, Mr. Redlawsk and Mr. Murray said.
In North Jersey, traders, lawyers and other professionals who work on Wall Street commute there from the affluent suburban and exurban communities in Morris and Somerset Counties. North Jersey also has several large pharmaceutical companies, including Johnson & Johnson, Merck and Bristol-Myers Squibb. The white-collar conservatives, many of them registered independents, who work in these and other industries have shied away from national Republican candidates.
“The Republican Party’s veer to the right on social issues over the last couple decades has turned off a lot of moderate voters in New Jersey,” Mr. Murray said.
There is a pocket of traditional cultural conservatives in the northwestern corner of the state, which is mountainous and more sparsely populated (the scenery and culture in the northwest seem a continent apart from the industrial landscapes that flash by on the New Jersey Turnpike). In Warren and Sussex Counties, the socially strident, Tea Party brand of Republicanism is more popular than in the suburbs, Mr. Murray said.
The Democratic strongholds in New Jersey are based in the state’s cities. At a slight slant, following the New Jersey Turnpikefrom the northeast near New York City to the southwest near Philadelphia, New Jersey’s most urbanized areas form the core of the Democratic Party’s support in the state. This continuum — from Jersey City, Newark and Elizabeth, to the university town of Princeton, to Trenton and Camden — traverses the main cultural divide in the state, between the north and south.
The north is more ethnically diverse. About 1 in 5 New Jersey residents was born in a foreign country. New Jersey is 15 percent African-American, 18 percent Hispanic and 9 percent Asian, the third-highest share of Asian-Americans in the nation.
Northern Jersey — land of Giants and Yankee fans — is home to more urban Democrats, and is culturally in New York City’s sphere of influence. In southwest Jersey, Eagles and Phillies fans predominate, and suburban Democrats watch Philadelphia television.
Democrats in the southwest are also a little more conservative than Democrats in the north. In New Jersey’s last two gubernatorial races, the counties surrounding Camden — Gloucester, Atlantic, Burlington and Salem — flipped from favoring Jon S. Corzine, a Democrat, in 2005 to voting him out of office in 2009.
The timing of New Jersey’s gubernatorial vote — it does not coincide with either Congressional midterm or presidential elections — tends to mean turnout is lower, which favors Republicans, Mr. Murray said. Demographic groups that more consistently go to the polls, affluent, elderly and white voters, also skew more Republican than the general population. Thus, heavily Republican areas in New Jersey, like Monmouth County and fast-growing Ocean County along the Jersey Shore, make up a greater share of the electorate in gubernatorial elections, helping to elect Mr. Christie, a Republican, in such a blue state.
The Bellwether: Atlantic County
In the past three presidential elections, Atlantic County has been an almost perfect predictor for the statewide vote in New Jersey. Democrats are more numerous in the East Coast’s version of Las Vegas, Atlantic City. But outside the city, there is a sizable Republican presence in retirement communities along the shore and the somewhat rural towns inland. In 2012, Atlantic County may provide an early hint of the final margin in New Jersey.
The Bottom Line
President Obama is still relatively popular in New Jersey, and the FiveThirtyEight model currently gives Mr. Romney just a 7 percent chance of carrying the state. If Mr. Romney does better than Senator John McCain did in 2008 among the many New Jersey residents who work in the financial services industry, it could make the state a little more competitive than it was four years ago. Wall Street support for Mr. Obama has cooled since 2008.
But the overall lack of appeal generated in New Jersey by Mr. Romney, who was elected governor of more liberal Massachusetts, illustrates why Republican candidates will have a difficult time wresting New Jersey back from Democrats.
“Romney, as governor of Massachusetts, could have also succeeded here in New Jersey, because he would have appealed to New Jersey voters,” Mr. Murray said, “But when Republican nominees veer to the right on social issues in order to win the nomination, that can come back to bite you in a place like New Jersey.”
Mr. Romney could tap Mr. Christie to be his vice president, but even that would not make a significant difference in how the state votes, Mr. Redlawsk said.
“At the national level, New Jersey is reliably Democratic, and I don’t see a whole lot happening to change that,” Mr. Redlawsk said, “If anything, it might go the other way if the Republican Party continues this rightward surge.”
The New York Times and Micah Cohen are going to take a state by state look at each state throughout the next few months. Next up is New Jersey.
New Jersey:
Optimistic Republicans might be forgiven for daydreaming about turning New Jersey into a red state and getting its 14 electoral votes. For the past 20 years, the state has been reliably Democratic in presidential elections, yet it has a number of characteristics that would suggest at least an openness to favoring Republicans.
New Jersey has a fairly popular Republican governor, Chris Christie. Its Congressional delegation is evenly split, with six Democrats and six Republicans. Moreover, New Jersey is the fourth most affluent state in the nation, with a median household income of $63,540. New Jersey voters also come overwhelmingly from Republican-friendly territory: the suburbs. In 2008, 88 percent of New Jersey voters said they lived in suburban communities, according to exit polls.
And it was not long ago that New Jersey was a reliably Republican state in presidential elections. Republican presidential candidates carried it from 1968 to 1988, overperforming their national popular vote in every election.
But, although the Republican Party in New Jersey is somewhat stronger than in other Northeastern states, the dynamics shaping the state’s politics are more likely to continue moving the state to the left.
States often shift politically for two main reasons: migrants and immigrants change the demographic makeup of the state, or a change in policy causes a rift between a party and its voters.
In New Jersey, both have occurred, and both have benefited Democrats. First, New Jersey became more ethnically diverse, and minority groups that favor Democrats have become a larger and larger share of the vote. And second, as cultural, rather than fiscal issues increasingly defined the national Republican Party, moderate Republicans and independents in New Jersey left the party in elections for national offices.
The second trend is why miles and miles of New Jersey suburbs have translated into underwhelming Republican support. New Jersey Republicanism is exemplified by well-educated, wealthy and most of all, socially moderate voters, Mr. Redlawsk and Mr. Murray said.
In North Jersey, traders, lawyers and other professionals who work on Wall Street commute there from the affluent suburban and exurban communities in Morris and Somerset Counties. North Jersey also has several large pharmaceutical companies, including Johnson & Johnson, Merck and Bristol-Myers Squibb. The white-collar conservatives, many of them registered independents, who work in these and other industries have shied away from national Republican candidates.
“The Republican Party’s veer to the right on social issues over the last couple decades has turned off a lot of moderate voters in New Jersey,” Mr. Murray said.
There is a pocket of traditional cultural conservatives in the northwestern corner of the state, which is mountainous and more sparsely populated (the scenery and culture in the northwest seem a continent apart from the industrial landscapes that flash by on the New Jersey Turnpike). In Warren and Sussex Counties, the socially strident, Tea Party brand of Republicanism is more popular than in the suburbs, Mr. Murray said.
The Democratic strongholds in New Jersey are based in the state’s cities. At a slight slant, following the New Jersey Turnpikefrom the northeast near New York City to the southwest near Philadelphia, New Jersey’s most urbanized areas form the core of the Democratic Party’s support in the state. This continuum — from Jersey City, Newark and Elizabeth, to the university town of Princeton, to Trenton and Camden — traverses the main cultural divide in the state, between the north and south.
The north is more ethnically diverse. About 1 in 5 New Jersey residents was born in a foreign country. New Jersey is 15 percent African-American, 18 percent Hispanic and 9 percent Asian, the third-highest share of Asian-Americans in the nation.
Northern Jersey — land of Giants and Yankee fans — is home to more urban Democrats, and is culturally in New York City’s sphere of influence. In southwest Jersey, Eagles and Phillies fans predominate, and suburban Democrats watch Philadelphia television.
Democrats in the southwest are also a little more conservative than Democrats in the north. In New Jersey’s last two gubernatorial races, the counties surrounding Camden — Gloucester, Atlantic, Burlington and Salem — flipped from favoring Jon S. Corzine, a Democrat, in 2005 to voting him out of office in 2009.
The timing of New Jersey’s gubernatorial vote — it does not coincide with either Congressional midterm or presidential elections — tends to mean turnout is lower, which favors Republicans, Mr. Murray said. Demographic groups that more consistently go to the polls, affluent, elderly and white voters, also skew more Republican than the general population. Thus, heavily Republican areas in New Jersey, like Monmouth County and fast-growing Ocean County along the Jersey Shore, make up a greater share of the electorate in gubernatorial elections, helping to elect Mr. Christie, a Republican, in such a blue state.
The Bellwether: Atlantic County
In the past three presidential elections, Atlantic County has been an almost perfect predictor for the statewide vote in New Jersey. Democrats are more numerous in the East Coast’s version of Las Vegas, Atlantic City. But outside the city, there is a sizable Republican presence in retirement communities along the shore and the somewhat rural towns inland. In 2012, Atlantic County may provide an early hint of the final margin in New Jersey.
The Bottom Line
President Obama is still relatively popular in New Jersey, and the FiveThirtyEight model currently gives Mr. Romney just a 7 percent chance of carrying the state. If Mr. Romney does better than Senator John McCain did in 2008 among the many New Jersey residents who work in the financial services industry, it could make the state a little more competitive than it was four years ago. Wall Street support for Mr. Obama has cooled since 2008.
But the overall lack of appeal generated in New Jersey by Mr. Romney, who was elected governor of more liberal Massachusetts, illustrates why Republican candidates will have a difficult time wresting New Jersey back from Democrats.
“Romney, as governor of Massachusetts, could have also succeeded here in New Jersey, because he would have appealed to New Jersey voters,” Mr. Murray said, “But when Republican nominees veer to the right on social issues in order to win the nomination, that can come back to bite you in a place like New Jersey.”
Mr. Romney could tap Mr. Christie to be his vice president, but even that would not make a significant difference in how the state votes, Mr. Redlawsk said.
“At the national level, New Jersey is reliably Democratic, and I don’t see a whole lot happening to change that,” Mr. Redlawsk said, “If anything, it might go the other way if the Republican Party continues this rightward surge.”
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Presidential Geography: Alaska
The 2012 presidential election is less than four months away and there is still a lot of 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 are going to take a state by state look at each state throughout the next few months. Next up is Alaska.
Alaska:
For 67 days in 2008, Alaska was a leading player in American politics, pulled — in tow with then-Gov. Sarah Palin — by the McCain campaign into the national dialogue.
Ms. Palin — who had an approval rating of about 80 percent in Alaska when she joined the McCain ticket – brought the state’s culture with her, and reporters and pundits were suddenly talking about moose meat and hockey moms.
Today, Ms. Palin and the Last Frontier are hard to find in political reporting. Ms. Palin is heard from very little beyond her role as a contributor on Fox News. The latest story about Ms. Palin centered on whether she would be invited to speak at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla.
Alaska voters also seem to have moved past the Palin era. An Ivan Moore Research poll in late 2011 found that just 29 percent of registered voters in Alaska had positive feelings about Ms. Palin.
“I have a sense that today she would have a very hard time getting elected here,” said Margaret Stock, an adjunct instructor in the department of political science at the University of Alaska Anchorage.
“I don’t think she could get elected to anything,” said Donald C. Mitchell, who has written extensively about Alaska Natives and Alaska politics.
While no longer enamored with Ms. Palin, Alaska is still a conservative state and Mitt Romney should have little trouble winning its three electoral votes. But the state’s political instincts are more nuanced and idiosyncratic than the partisan image of its most famous Republican governor.
Alaska’s current senators do not fit the Palin mold. The state’s senior senator, Lisa Murkowski, a Republican who supports abortion rights, lost the 2010 Republican primary to a Tea Party favorite, Joe Miller. But Ms. Murkowski went on to run in thegeneral election as a write-in candidate, ultimately defeating Mr. Miller, who was endorsed by Ms. Palin.
The state’s junior senator is Mark Begich, a Democrat (yes, a Democrat).
Among the state’s most prominent elected officials, Sean Parnell, Alaska’s governor, may be the closest to Ms. Palin politically. “We have a governor who is following many of the same policies [as Ms. Palin],” said Mead Treadwell, Alaska’s lieutenant governor, “but he is not a lighting rod.”
Over all, Alaska’s electorate, although certainly right of center, is difficult to pigeonhole. “I wouldn’t say we’re a hard-core Republican state,” Ms. Stock said, “there are issues where Lisa Murkowski has completely broken with the Republican Party, and Alaskans are happy about that.”
More than half of the state’s residents live in and around Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula. There are pockets of liberal voters, but it’s a mostly Republican area, and Anchorage is a mostly conservative city, with a large number of evangelical Christians. Forty miles to the north is the Matanuska-Susitna Valley. It is one of the most socially conservative areas of the state and is heavily evangelical.
A little more than one-tenth of Alaskans live in Fairbanks and its suburbs. Fairbanks has a Democratic constituency at its city’s core, but beyond that, it’s overwhelmingly conservative, and perhaps the most libertarian region in one of the most libertarian states. The Tea Party and its small government message have broad support in Fairbanks, the Mat-Su Valley and Alaska generally. Since statehood in 1959, the federal government has had more control over Alaska than most states, particularly over how to use its energy resources, which has prompted some backlash.
“Alaska has a fairly strong libertarian streak, a strong limited-government streak,” Mr. Treadwell said.
Slightly more than 10 percent of residents live in southeast Alaska, in the area around Juneau. Victor Fischer, an author and former professor at the University of Alaska Anchorage, said the area is generally more Democratic and Republicans in the region are closer to the ideological center.
The rest of the state is barely inhabited, with a smattering of small towns. And there are large swathes of land that are completely uninhabited. About half the state’s Alaska Native population, 2 which is 15 percent of the state, lives outside the big population centers. Alaska Natives lean Democratic, Mr. Fischer said.
The Bottom Line
Alaska’s quirks and contradictions make the state difficult to characterize politically. Although Alaska has a strong libertarian streak, it is very dependent on federal largess. “Alaskans are on the dole,” Ms. Stock said.
The United States military has a major presence in the state, with bases near Anchorage and Fairbanks. Roughly 14 percent of Alaska residents are veterans. But Alaska is also the second youngest state in the country.
The state’s economy also has internal conflicts. The four biggest employers in Alaska are the oil, fishing and tourism industries and government. Interest groups in each industry often find themselves working at cross purposes, particularly oil and fishing.
And with just over 720,000 residents, Alaska has less than a quarter of 1 percent of the nation’s population, yet it covers more than a sixth of all its land. Alaskans are mostly clustered in the cities of Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau, and so in a giant state, candidates for political office still practice retail politics, Mr. Mitchell said. The personality of each candidate can have a significant influence on how people vote, since many of them actually meet the candidates.
The 2012 presidential contest in Alaska is unlikely to carry much suspense. Mr. Romney has a 99 percent chance of carrying the state, according to the current FiveThirtyEight forecast. But Alaska’s consistent leanings in presidential contests, as well as Ms. Palin’s partisan politics, belie a more shades-of-gray conservatism on the ground.
Look no further than the period just before Ms. Palin was plucked out of northern obscurity: In early 2008, polls showed John McCain’s margin over President Obama in Alaska in only the single digits.
And Ms. Palin herself was less partisan. She worked with Democrats in the state legislature to raise taxes on oil companies. She created a sub-cabinet team to address climate change. And although she personally supported it, Ms. Palin vetoed a bill that would have barred same-sex couples from receiving state benefits, saying it was unconstitutional.
“She was very progressive in many, many ways,” Mr. Fischer said.
The New York Times and Micah Cohen are going to take a state by state look at each state throughout the next few months. Next up is Alaska.
Alaska:
For 67 days in 2008, Alaska was a leading player in American politics, pulled — in tow with then-Gov. Sarah Palin — by the McCain campaign into the national dialogue.
Ms. Palin — who had an approval rating of about 80 percent in Alaska when she joined the McCain ticket – brought the state’s culture with her, and reporters and pundits were suddenly talking about moose meat and hockey moms.
Today, Ms. Palin and the Last Frontier are hard to find in political reporting. Ms. Palin is heard from very little beyond her role as a contributor on Fox News. The latest story about Ms. Palin centered on whether she would be invited to speak at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla.
Alaska voters also seem to have moved past the Palin era. An Ivan Moore Research poll in late 2011 found that just 29 percent of registered voters in Alaska had positive feelings about Ms. Palin.
“I have a sense that today she would have a very hard time getting elected here,” said Margaret Stock, an adjunct instructor in the department of political science at the University of Alaska Anchorage.
“I don’t think she could get elected to anything,” said Donald C. Mitchell, who has written extensively about Alaska Natives and Alaska politics.
While no longer enamored with Ms. Palin, Alaska is still a conservative state and Mitt Romney should have little trouble winning its three electoral votes. But the state’s political instincts are more nuanced and idiosyncratic than the partisan image of its most famous Republican governor.
Alaska’s current senators do not fit the Palin mold. The state’s senior senator, Lisa Murkowski, a Republican who supports abortion rights, lost the 2010 Republican primary to a Tea Party favorite, Joe Miller. But Ms. Murkowski went on to run in thegeneral election as a write-in candidate, ultimately defeating Mr. Miller, who was endorsed by Ms. Palin.
The state’s junior senator is Mark Begich, a Democrat (yes, a Democrat).
Among the state’s most prominent elected officials, Sean Parnell, Alaska’s governor, may be the closest to Ms. Palin politically. “We have a governor who is following many of the same policies [as Ms. Palin],” said Mead Treadwell, Alaska’s lieutenant governor, “but he is not a lighting rod.”
Over all, Alaska’s electorate, although certainly right of center, is difficult to pigeonhole. “I wouldn’t say we’re a hard-core Republican state,” Ms. Stock said, “there are issues where Lisa Murkowski has completely broken with the Republican Party, and Alaskans are happy about that.”
More than half of the state’s residents live in and around Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula. There are pockets of liberal voters, but it’s a mostly Republican area, and Anchorage is a mostly conservative city, with a large number of evangelical Christians. Forty miles to the north is the Matanuska-Susitna Valley. It is one of the most socially conservative areas of the state and is heavily evangelical.
A little more than one-tenth of Alaskans live in Fairbanks and its suburbs. Fairbanks has a Democratic constituency at its city’s core, but beyond that, it’s overwhelmingly conservative, and perhaps the most libertarian region in one of the most libertarian states. The Tea Party and its small government message have broad support in Fairbanks, the Mat-Su Valley and Alaska generally. Since statehood in 1959, the federal government has had more control over Alaska than most states, particularly over how to use its energy resources, which has prompted some backlash.
“Alaska has a fairly strong libertarian streak, a strong limited-government streak,” Mr. Treadwell said.
Slightly more than 10 percent of residents live in southeast Alaska, in the area around Juneau. Victor Fischer, an author and former professor at the University of Alaska Anchorage, said the area is generally more Democratic and Republicans in the region are closer to the ideological center.
The rest of the state is barely inhabited, with a smattering of small towns. And there are large swathes of land that are completely uninhabited. About half the state’s Alaska Native population, 2 which is 15 percent of the state, lives outside the big population centers. Alaska Natives lean Democratic, Mr. Fischer said.
The Bottom Line
Alaska’s quirks and contradictions make the state difficult to characterize politically. Although Alaska has a strong libertarian streak, it is very dependent on federal largess. “Alaskans are on the dole,” Ms. Stock said.
The United States military has a major presence in the state, with bases near Anchorage and Fairbanks. Roughly 14 percent of Alaska residents are veterans. But Alaska is also the second youngest state in the country.
The state’s economy also has internal conflicts. The four biggest employers in Alaska are the oil, fishing and tourism industries and government. Interest groups in each industry often find themselves working at cross purposes, particularly oil and fishing.
And with just over 720,000 residents, Alaska has less than a quarter of 1 percent of the nation’s population, yet it covers more than a sixth of all its land. Alaskans are mostly clustered in the cities of Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau, and so in a giant state, candidates for political office still practice retail politics, Mr. Mitchell said. The personality of each candidate can have a significant influence on how people vote, since many of them actually meet the candidates.
The 2012 presidential contest in Alaska is unlikely to carry much suspense. Mr. Romney has a 99 percent chance of carrying the state, according to the current FiveThirtyEight forecast. But Alaska’s consistent leanings in presidential contests, as well as Ms. Palin’s partisan politics, belie a more shades-of-gray conservatism on the ground.
Look no further than the period just before Ms. Palin was plucked out of northern obscurity: In early 2008, polls showed John McCain’s margin over President Obama in Alaska in only the single digits.
And Ms. Palin herself was less partisan. She worked with Democrats in the state legislature to raise taxes on oil companies. She created a sub-cabinet team to address climate change. And although she personally supported it, Ms. Palin vetoed a bill that would have barred same-sex couples from receiving state benefits, saying it was unconstitutional.
“She was very progressive in many, many ways,” Mr. Fischer said.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
The 10 U.S. House races to watch
Every two years, members of the U.S. House of Representatives most go before voters for reelection. Over the last few election cycles, there has been some high turnover with Democrats regaining the U.S. House in 2006, adding to their majority in 2008, and losing control to Republicans in 2010. Now with the 2012 elections rapidly approaching, there could be continued turnover with Democrats gains/Republicans losses. With a presidential election taking place too, voter turnout will likely be higher than two years ago and depending on which side has more energy come November could impact multiple races for the U.S. House. In particular, the Washington Post and the Fix highlight ten races to keep an eye on as incumbents or districts are viewed as vulnerable for the party in control in each.
10. Rep. John Barrow (D-Ga.): With Barrow’s district getting about 15 points more Republican — perhaps the biggest shift in the country that made the district one that would have gone 59 percent for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in 2008 — one might wonder why this doesn’t rank higher on our list. In short, it’s because Barrow is a survivor. Like Reps. Jim Matheson (D-Utah), Dan Boren (D-Okla.) and Mike McIntyre (D-N.C.), Barrow has shown he can survive in conservative territory in spite of the ‘D’ next to his name. The reason Barrow is on this list and the others aren’t is that his district just got so much tougher.
9. Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle (R-N.Y.): Buerkle won this Democratic-leaning upstate district by a razor-thin margin in 2010 — and it got about a point tougher in redistricting — but she hasn’t shied away from partisan warfare in Congress. The man she beat, former congressman Dan Maffei (D), is hoping to use her opposition to the health-care law and her support for Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) budget against her. If any race is a referendum on those policies, it’s this one.
8. Rep. Larry Kissell (D-N.C.): The former teacher and light-fundraising two-term congressman got a break in 2010, when Republicans were unable to land a top- or even second-tier recruit against him. This time, the primary runoff to face Kissell is one of the most-watched contests in the House, with outside groups lining up being former congressional aide Richard Hudson and conservative favorite Scott Keadle. Either would give Kissell a run for his money in a district that was already competitive and got about 10 points more Republican (57 percent McCain).
7. Oklahoma’s 2nd district (Democratic-held seat): We still don’t know who the candidates are in the race for the retiring Boren’s seat; there are runoffs on both sides. What we do know: Republicans are bullish on the last Democratic seat in the state. And the presidential primary earlier this year (Obama lost 40 percent of the Democratic primary vote to a slate of nobodies) is a reminder that having Obama on the ballot won’t do the Democratic nominee any favors.
6. Rep. Robert Dold (R-Ill.): After redistricting, Dold sits in the most Democratic seat currently held by a Republican. He’s a moderate, but so is the Democrat running against him, Brad Schneider. Why isn’t Dold higher on this list? Because he’s got a lot more cash than Schneider and has been using it to campaign hard in his new district. Dold won’t take this one laying down.
5. Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.): Maryland Democrats gave the veteran Republican a very tough district that includes little of his old territory, and self-funding businessman John Delaney earned plaudits for his upset in the Democratic primary over state Sen. Rob Garagiola. The 85-year-old incumbent is the underdog here.
4. North Carolina’s 11th district (D): Retiring Rep. Heath Shuler’s (D-N.C.) district was already conservative, and now it’s the reddest district in the state (58 percent McCain). Enter Shuler’s former chief of staff, Hayden Rogers, who won the Democratic nomination but is fighting an uphill battle. The good news for Democrats is that they’ve shown an ability to hold seats in Appalachia even in a tough environment. GOP businessmen Vance Patterson and Mark Meadows face off in a runoff on Tuesday; the winner will be the favorite in November.
3. Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.): This district would be hard for Republicans to hold even if Walsh wasn’t ... well, Walsh. As it is, the GOP has a candidate who has numerous videos showing him getting way-too-excited at town halls and recently complained that his opponent talks too much about her service in Iraq. It doesn’t help Walsh that that opponent, former Veterans Affairs officialTammy Duckworth (D), is a war hero who lost both her legs, but don’t forget that she also raised $900,000 this past quarter and is running in a former swing district that got much friendlier for Democrats.
2. Arkansas’s 4th district (D): Democrats’s choice candidate in this race, attorney Q. Byrum Hurst, lost in the primary runoff, and nobody has much confidence that state Sen. Gene Jeffress (D) can hold this conservative-leaning seat. Iraq and Afghanistan veteran Tom Cotton (R), meanwhile, is a rising GOP star who raised half a million dollars in the second quarter.
1. North Carolina’s 13th district (D): North Carolina Republicans turned Rep. Brad Miller’s (D) district from a 40 percent McCain district into a 54 percent McCain district. Miller retired, and then Democrats nominated a candidate who had dropped out of the race due to health problems. That candidate, state employee Charles Malone, is now back in the race, but he stands little chance against former U.S. attorney George Holding (R). Holding’s one vulnerability right now is that he’s the one who initially brought the charges in the failed case against former senator and presidential candidate John Edwards.
10. Rep. John Barrow (D-Ga.): With Barrow’s district getting about 15 points more Republican — perhaps the biggest shift in the country that made the district one that would have gone 59 percent for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in 2008 — one might wonder why this doesn’t rank higher on our list. In short, it’s because Barrow is a survivor. Like Reps. Jim Matheson (D-Utah), Dan Boren (D-Okla.) and Mike McIntyre (D-N.C.), Barrow has shown he can survive in conservative territory in spite of the ‘D’ next to his name. The reason Barrow is on this list and the others aren’t is that his district just got so much tougher.
9. Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle (R-N.Y.): Buerkle won this Democratic-leaning upstate district by a razor-thin margin in 2010 — and it got about a point tougher in redistricting — but she hasn’t shied away from partisan warfare in Congress. The man she beat, former congressman Dan Maffei (D), is hoping to use her opposition to the health-care law and her support for Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) budget against her. If any race is a referendum on those policies, it’s this one.
8. Rep. Larry Kissell (D-N.C.): The former teacher and light-fundraising two-term congressman got a break in 2010, when Republicans were unable to land a top- or even second-tier recruit against him. This time, the primary runoff to face Kissell is one of the most-watched contests in the House, with outside groups lining up being former congressional aide Richard Hudson and conservative favorite Scott Keadle. Either would give Kissell a run for his money in a district that was already competitive and got about 10 points more Republican (57 percent McCain).
7. Oklahoma’s 2nd district (Democratic-held seat): We still don’t know who the candidates are in the race for the retiring Boren’s seat; there are runoffs on both sides. What we do know: Republicans are bullish on the last Democratic seat in the state. And the presidential primary earlier this year (Obama lost 40 percent of the Democratic primary vote to a slate of nobodies) is a reminder that having Obama on the ballot won’t do the Democratic nominee any favors.
6. Rep. Robert Dold (R-Ill.): After redistricting, Dold sits in the most Democratic seat currently held by a Republican. He’s a moderate, but so is the Democrat running against him, Brad Schneider. Why isn’t Dold higher on this list? Because he’s got a lot more cash than Schneider and has been using it to campaign hard in his new district. Dold won’t take this one laying down.
5. Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.): Maryland Democrats gave the veteran Republican a very tough district that includes little of his old territory, and self-funding businessman John Delaney earned plaudits for his upset in the Democratic primary over state Sen. Rob Garagiola. The 85-year-old incumbent is the underdog here.
4. North Carolina’s 11th district (D): Retiring Rep. Heath Shuler’s (D-N.C.) district was already conservative, and now it’s the reddest district in the state (58 percent McCain). Enter Shuler’s former chief of staff, Hayden Rogers, who won the Democratic nomination but is fighting an uphill battle. The good news for Democrats is that they’ve shown an ability to hold seats in Appalachia even in a tough environment. GOP businessmen Vance Patterson and Mark Meadows face off in a runoff on Tuesday; the winner will be the favorite in November.
3. Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.): This district would be hard for Republicans to hold even if Walsh wasn’t ... well, Walsh. As it is, the GOP has a candidate who has numerous videos showing him getting way-too-excited at town halls and recently complained that his opponent talks too much about her service in Iraq. It doesn’t help Walsh that that opponent, former Veterans Affairs officialTammy Duckworth (D), is a war hero who lost both her legs, but don’t forget that she also raised $900,000 this past quarter and is running in a former swing district that got much friendlier for Democrats.
2. Arkansas’s 4th district (D): Democrats’s choice candidate in this race, attorney Q. Byrum Hurst, lost in the primary runoff, and nobody has much confidence that state Sen. Gene Jeffress (D) can hold this conservative-leaning seat. Iraq and Afghanistan veteran Tom Cotton (R), meanwhile, is a rising GOP star who raised half a million dollars in the second quarter.
1. North Carolina’s 13th district (D): North Carolina Republicans turned Rep. Brad Miller’s (D) district from a 40 percent McCain district into a 54 percent McCain district. Miller retired, and then Democrats nominated a candidate who had dropped out of the race due to health problems. That candidate, state employee Charles Malone, is now back in the race, but he stands little chance against former U.S. attorney George Holding (R). Holding’s one vulnerability right now is that he’s the one who initially brought the charges in the failed case against former senator and presidential candidate John Edwards.
Working to Fix Government via Fixing the Presidency
There is something broken in Washington DC and there are more and more arising and searching for answers for how to fix the problem. No Labels is quickly becoming the leader in that effort and have provided initiatives and ideas that are backed by several Americans in each state. Recently, a piece was written in the New York Times about one of their approaches to solving problems in the nation's capital and country overall.
UNSHACKLING THE PRESIDENCY TO FIX THE GOVERNMENT
In all the discussion these days about how dysfunctional Washington has become, attention usually centers on a fractious Congress riven by partisanship and paralyzed at times by rules and obstruction. Often lost in that conversation is the possibility that the presidency itself may need fixing.
At least that is the conclusion of a bipartisan group of former advisers to presidents and would-be presidents who have drafted what they call a plan to make the presidency work better. With the help of several former White House chiefs of staff, the group, called No Labels, has fashioned a blueprint that would make whoever wins in November both more powerful and more accountable.
The idea is to cut through some of the institutional obstacles to decisive leadership that have challenged President Obama and his recent predecessors, while also erecting structures to foster more bipartisanship, transparency and responsiveness. If the proposals were enacted, the next president would have more latitude to reorganize the government, appoint his own team, reject special-interest measures and fast-track his own initiatives through Congress. But he would also be called on to interact more regularly with lawmakers, reporters and the public.
“There aren’t any magic answers to Washington’s problems,” said Dan Schnur, a former Republican strategist who worked on several presidential campaigns and now directs the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California. “But what these reforms do is make it easier for elected officials who are serious about solving problems to do so.”
Nancy Jacobson, a longtime Democratic fund-raiser who, like Mr. Schnur, is a co-founder of No Labels, said the purpose of the plan was to find ways to make a difference, taking into account the current atmosphere. “We’re trying to make the presidency more effective,” she said.
The plan is a follow-up to a similar blueprint from No Labels for making Congress work better. Among those consulted by the group — which describes itself as a movement of Democrats, Republicans and independents devoted to crossing partisan lines to solve problems — were William Daley, a former chief of staff to Mr. Obama, and Joshua B. Bolten, who was the last chief of staff to President George W. Bush.
The plan advances 11 proposals, some of them relatively minor but symbolically important and others fairly sweeping in scope. Many of them may be unlikely to be adopted, but the authors hope at least to prompt a debate about ways to address the dysfunction they see.
To build accountability, the plan calls on the next president to hold monthly news conferences and twice-a-year citizen news conferences; meet quarterly with the Congressional leadership of both parties; bill his political party for travel that involves fund-raising, rather than schedule extraneous official events so that taxpayers pick up part of the tab; and submit to 90-minute question-and-answer sessions each month on the floors of Congress, much as the British prime minister does in Parliament.
To build presidential power, the plan proposes that the next president be given expanded authority to send individual items in spending bills back to Congress for up-or-down votes. It also proposes renewing presidential power that lapsed in 1984 to consolidate and even eliminate parts of the federal government.
The next president would also have more freedom to appoint his administration, a process now widely considered broken. The number of positions requiring Senate confirmation has grown to 1,400 from 280 in the last half-century, and the average confirmation time has increased from 2 ½ months to more than 10 months, according to the group’s research.
To streamline that, the plan endorses a bill, which has passed the Senate and is awaiting House consideration, to trim the number of midlevel posts requiring confirmation. It also proposes that the winner of the election name a list of can’t-wait nominees who would be expedited, and that all nominations be confirmed or rejected within 90 days. Any that were not acted on by then would be confirmed by default.
Perhaps most provocative is a proposal to allow the president to send legislation to Congress twice a year that could not be amended but only approved or rejected. That is patterned after what is known as fast-track authority, often applied to trade agreements. By preventing lawmakers from changing such legislation, a president could get yes-or-no answers on his top priorities.
William A. Galston, an aide to President Bill Clinton who is now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, suggested that one possible subject of fast-track authority could be the bipartisan plan to reduce the deficit that was created by a presidential commission led by Alan K. Simpson, a former Republican senator from Wyoming, and Erskine B. Bowles, a White House chief of staff under Mr. Clinton. The Simpson-Bowles plan included a cornucopia of unpopular tax increases and spending cuts, but under this proposal Congress would have to accept or reject the whole plan.
Mark McKinnon, a Democratic media consultant who crossed lines to work for Mr. Bush’s campaigns and later helped found No Labels, said that the fast-track idea “would be a big game changer” by itself, but that the overall effect of the various proposals would go a long way toward restoring faith in the presidency.
“In their parts, they’re effective, but cumulatively can have a huge impact,” he said. “The voters are just hungry to see any problem solving. If they start to see action on any or all of these, I think it will have a measurable impact.”
UNSHACKLING THE PRESIDENCY TO FIX THE GOVERNMENT
In all the discussion these days about how dysfunctional Washington has become, attention usually centers on a fractious Congress riven by partisanship and paralyzed at times by rules and obstruction. Often lost in that conversation is the possibility that the presidency itself may need fixing.
At least that is the conclusion of a bipartisan group of former advisers to presidents and would-be presidents who have drafted what they call a plan to make the presidency work better. With the help of several former White House chiefs of staff, the group, called No Labels, has fashioned a blueprint that would make whoever wins in November both more powerful and more accountable.
The idea is to cut through some of the institutional obstacles to decisive leadership that have challenged President Obama and his recent predecessors, while also erecting structures to foster more bipartisanship, transparency and responsiveness. If the proposals were enacted, the next president would have more latitude to reorganize the government, appoint his own team, reject special-interest measures and fast-track his own initiatives through Congress. But he would also be called on to interact more regularly with lawmakers, reporters and the public.
“There aren’t any magic answers to Washington’s problems,” said Dan Schnur, a former Republican strategist who worked on several presidential campaigns and now directs the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California. “But what these reforms do is make it easier for elected officials who are serious about solving problems to do so.”
Nancy Jacobson, a longtime Democratic fund-raiser who, like Mr. Schnur, is a co-founder of No Labels, said the purpose of the plan was to find ways to make a difference, taking into account the current atmosphere. “We’re trying to make the presidency more effective,” she said.
The plan is a follow-up to a similar blueprint from No Labels for making Congress work better. Among those consulted by the group — which describes itself as a movement of Democrats, Republicans and independents devoted to crossing partisan lines to solve problems — were William Daley, a former chief of staff to Mr. Obama, and Joshua B. Bolten, who was the last chief of staff to President George W. Bush.
The plan advances 11 proposals, some of them relatively minor but symbolically important and others fairly sweeping in scope. Many of them may be unlikely to be adopted, but the authors hope at least to prompt a debate about ways to address the dysfunction they see.
To build accountability, the plan calls on the next president to hold monthly news conferences and twice-a-year citizen news conferences; meet quarterly with the Congressional leadership of both parties; bill his political party for travel that involves fund-raising, rather than schedule extraneous official events so that taxpayers pick up part of the tab; and submit to 90-minute question-and-answer sessions each month on the floors of Congress, much as the British prime minister does in Parliament.
To build presidential power, the plan proposes that the next president be given expanded authority to send individual items in spending bills back to Congress for up-or-down votes. It also proposes renewing presidential power that lapsed in 1984 to consolidate and even eliminate parts of the federal government.
The next president would also have more freedom to appoint his administration, a process now widely considered broken. The number of positions requiring Senate confirmation has grown to 1,400 from 280 in the last half-century, and the average confirmation time has increased from 2 ½ months to more than 10 months, according to the group’s research.
To streamline that, the plan endorses a bill, which has passed the Senate and is awaiting House consideration, to trim the number of midlevel posts requiring confirmation. It also proposes that the winner of the election name a list of can’t-wait nominees who would be expedited, and that all nominations be confirmed or rejected within 90 days. Any that were not acted on by then would be confirmed by default.
Perhaps most provocative is a proposal to allow the president to send legislation to Congress twice a year that could not be amended but only approved or rejected. That is patterned after what is known as fast-track authority, often applied to trade agreements. By preventing lawmakers from changing such legislation, a president could get yes-or-no answers on his top priorities.
William A. Galston, an aide to President Bill Clinton who is now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, suggested that one possible subject of fast-track authority could be the bipartisan plan to reduce the deficit that was created by a presidential commission led by Alan K. Simpson, a former Republican senator from Wyoming, and Erskine B. Bowles, a White House chief of staff under Mr. Clinton. The Simpson-Bowles plan included a cornucopia of unpopular tax increases and spending cuts, but under this proposal Congress would have to accept or reject the whole plan.
Mark McKinnon, a Democratic media consultant who crossed lines to work for Mr. Bush’s campaigns and later helped found No Labels, said that the fast-track idea “would be a big game changer” by itself, but that the overall effect of the various proposals would go a long way toward restoring faith in the presidency.
“In their parts, they’re effective, but cumulatively can have a huge impact,” he said. “The voters are just hungry to see any problem solving. If they start to see action on any or all of these, I think it will have a measurable impact.”
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Presidential Geography: Iowa
The 2012 presidential election is less than four months away and there is still a lot of 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 are going to take a state by state look at each state throughout the next few months. Next up is the Iowa.
IOWA:
President Obama campaigned in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, on Tuesday, his 10th trip to the state as president. It was the ninth time this year that Mr. Obama, Michelle Obama or Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. has visited Iowa. Mitt Romney, of course, spent weeks in Iowa in the run-up to the state’s Jan. 3 caucuses and has returned a number of times since.
Why is a state with only six electoral votes getting such attention? It’s a swing state in every sense of the word. First, Iowa has an approximately equal number of registered Republicans and registered Democrats. Second, it is one of the most elastic states, with a large swath of unaffiliated voters who are persuadable, and could plausibly vote for either Mr. Obama or Mr. Romney.
Iowa’s competitiveness is partly a function of demographics, but the state’s current political dynamic is also a consequence of Iowa’s prominent role in the presidential nominating process, according to Mr. Yepsen. “The caucuses have helped contribute to the creation of a healthy two-party system,” he said. “Every four years, one party or the other or both, was really doing some intense grass-roots political work.”
Historically, Iowa was solidly Republican, and the state is relatively homogeneous racially, nearly 90 percent white. But as the state’s economy and demography changed, so did its politics.
“The farm crisis of the 1980s really broke the back of the Republican Party,” Mr. Yepsen said.
The number of Iowans working primarily in farming — the power source of the state’s G.O.P. — dropped to 56,000 in 1997 from 86,000 in 1982, according to The Almanac of American Politics. Iowa compensated for its slumping agricultural industry by adding white-collar and high-tech jobs and nurturing a growing financial services industry. Today, the state’s economy no longer relies so heavily on farming, and economic diversity, in turn, led to more political diversity. Iowa now has a more unusual profile.
It is the 12th most rural state by population, yet it is just about average in terms of median family income. It is also educated — about 91 percent of residents age 25 or older had at least a high school degree in 2009, placing the state seventh among all 50 states according to the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey.
Iowa is also less politically segregated than many other states.3 With a few exceptions, Republicans are competitive in Iowa’s Democratic-leaning regions, and vice versa.
Eastern Iowa tends to vote Democratic, but not by huge margins. There are blue-collar Democrats — many who work for the automobile industry or in other manufacturing jobs — in Dubuque and Davenport, Mr. Yepsen said. And there are liberal voters in Iowa City, where the University of Iowa is situated. The Democratic voters in southeastern Iowa, however, tend to be of the more conservative, yellow dog variety. Mr. Obama lost some of these southeastern counties to John McCain in 2008.
Western Iowa, where agriculture is still the backbone of the economy, is the most conservative part of the state, culturally and ideologically akin to its western neighbor, Nebraska. Religious conservatives are dominant in the northwest.
Central Iowa is the most competitive region of a competitive state. Outside of Des Moines, most of central Iowa is rural and tends to vote Republican. Polk County, where Des Moines is, traditionally votes Democratic. But as white-collar jobs have supplanted blue-collar jobs, Polk County has become more competitive.
The Republican governor, Terry Branstad, even edged out a victory in Polk in 2010.
Iowa has a relatively small but fast-growing Hispanic population, spread out fairly evenly throughout the state. Despite making up only 5 percent of the state’s population, Iowa’s Hispanics are being heavily courted by the Obama campaign, Mr. Yepsen said. There are Latino communities in Des Moines; smaller cities like Davenport, Muscatine and Storm Lake; and meatpacking towns like Columbus Junction.
The Bellwether: Cedar County
In the past three presidential elections, the vote in Cedar County has exactly matched the statewide vote. There has not been even a one percentage point difference. Here’s the catch: only 9,665 people voted in Cedar County in 2008. Because of the small size of Cedar — the county seat, Tipton, has slightly more than 3,200 residents — the county’s penchant for mirroring the statewide vote may be just a fluke, and it is possible Cedar’s preferences in 2012 will diverge widely from the state’s over all.
The Bottom Line
According to the current FiveThirtyEight forecast, Mr. Obama is a 65 percent favorite to win Iowa.
Because Iowa’s partisan armies are about the same size and a large chunk of residents are genuinely swing voters, the electoral outcome is subject to more factors — and more uncertain ones — than most states. In states like North Carolina and Pennsylvania, which have a roughly equal partisan balance but few true swing voters, turnout will be a chief determinant in November. In Iowa, however, the campaigns need to turn out their base and court the state’s large bloc of independent voters.
In Mr. Obama’s favor is the state’s low unemployment rate, which is well below the national rate and may be helping him with those unaffiliated voters. But Mr. Romney has advantages, too.
In 2008, registered Democrats outnumbered registered Republicans in Iowa, and Mr. Obama carried the state by 10 percentage points. But the 2012 Republican presidential caucuses — by engaging and registering conservative voters — seems to have helped to even things out again, Mr. Yepsen said. Republicans now outnumber Democrats.
The Republican caucuses, and the absence of a competitive Democratic campaign, may also help Mr. Romney in another respect: “The media pounding that Obama took from Republicans in the state will still take a toll on him in November,” Mr. Yepsen said, “That leaves a taste in the mouth.”
The New York Times and Micah Cohen are going to take a state by state look at each state throughout the next few months. Next up is the Iowa.
IOWA:
President Obama campaigned in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, on Tuesday, his 10th trip to the state as president. It was the ninth time this year that Mr. Obama, Michelle Obama or Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. has visited Iowa. Mitt Romney, of course, spent weeks in Iowa in the run-up to the state’s Jan. 3 caucuses and has returned a number of times since.
Why is a state with only six electoral votes getting such attention? It’s a swing state in every sense of the word. First, Iowa has an approximately equal number of registered Republicans and registered Democrats. Second, it is one of the most elastic states, with a large swath of unaffiliated voters who are persuadable, and could plausibly vote for either Mr. Obama or Mr. Romney.
Iowa’s competitiveness is partly a function of demographics, but the state’s current political dynamic is also a consequence of Iowa’s prominent role in the presidential nominating process, according to Mr. Yepsen. “The caucuses have helped contribute to the creation of a healthy two-party system,” he said. “Every four years, one party or the other or both, was really doing some intense grass-roots political work.”
Historically, Iowa was solidly Republican, and the state is relatively homogeneous racially, nearly 90 percent white. But as the state’s economy and demography changed, so did its politics.
“The farm crisis of the 1980s really broke the back of the Republican Party,” Mr. Yepsen said.
The number of Iowans working primarily in farming — the power source of the state’s G.O.P. — dropped to 56,000 in 1997 from 86,000 in 1982, according to The Almanac of American Politics. Iowa compensated for its slumping agricultural industry by adding white-collar and high-tech jobs and nurturing a growing financial services industry. Today, the state’s economy no longer relies so heavily on farming, and economic diversity, in turn, led to more political diversity. Iowa now has a more unusual profile.
It is the 12th most rural state by population, yet it is just about average in terms of median family income. It is also educated — about 91 percent of residents age 25 or older had at least a high school degree in 2009, placing the state seventh among all 50 states according to the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey.
Iowa is also less politically segregated than many other states.3 With a few exceptions, Republicans are competitive in Iowa’s Democratic-leaning regions, and vice versa.
Eastern Iowa tends to vote Democratic, but not by huge margins. There are blue-collar Democrats — many who work for the automobile industry or in other manufacturing jobs — in Dubuque and Davenport, Mr. Yepsen said. And there are liberal voters in Iowa City, where the University of Iowa is situated. The Democratic voters in southeastern Iowa, however, tend to be of the more conservative, yellow dog variety. Mr. Obama lost some of these southeastern counties to John McCain in 2008.
Western Iowa, where agriculture is still the backbone of the economy, is the most conservative part of the state, culturally and ideologically akin to its western neighbor, Nebraska. Religious conservatives are dominant in the northwest.
Central Iowa is the most competitive region of a competitive state. Outside of Des Moines, most of central Iowa is rural and tends to vote Republican. Polk County, where Des Moines is, traditionally votes Democratic. But as white-collar jobs have supplanted blue-collar jobs, Polk County has become more competitive.
The Republican governor, Terry Branstad, even edged out a victory in Polk in 2010.
Iowa has a relatively small but fast-growing Hispanic population, spread out fairly evenly throughout the state. Despite making up only 5 percent of the state’s population, Iowa’s Hispanics are being heavily courted by the Obama campaign, Mr. Yepsen said. There are Latino communities in Des Moines; smaller cities like Davenport, Muscatine and Storm Lake; and meatpacking towns like Columbus Junction.
The Bellwether: Cedar County
In the past three presidential elections, the vote in Cedar County has exactly matched the statewide vote. There has not been even a one percentage point difference. Here’s the catch: only 9,665 people voted in Cedar County in 2008. Because of the small size of Cedar — the county seat, Tipton, has slightly more than 3,200 residents — the county’s penchant for mirroring the statewide vote may be just a fluke, and it is possible Cedar’s preferences in 2012 will diverge widely from the state’s over all.
The Bottom Line
According to the current FiveThirtyEight forecast, Mr. Obama is a 65 percent favorite to win Iowa.
Because Iowa’s partisan armies are about the same size and a large chunk of residents are genuinely swing voters, the electoral outcome is subject to more factors — and more uncertain ones — than most states. In states like North Carolina and Pennsylvania, which have a roughly equal partisan balance but few true swing voters, turnout will be a chief determinant in November. In Iowa, however, the campaigns need to turn out their base and court the state’s large bloc of independent voters.
In Mr. Obama’s favor is the state’s low unemployment rate, which is well below the national rate and may be helping him with those unaffiliated voters. But Mr. Romney has advantages, too.
In 2008, registered Democrats outnumbered registered Republicans in Iowa, and Mr. Obama carried the state by 10 percentage points. But the 2012 Republican presidential caucuses — by engaging and registering conservative voters — seems to have helped to even things out again, Mr. Yepsen said. Republicans now outnumber Democrats.
The Republican caucuses, and the absence of a competitive Democratic campaign, may also help Mr. Romney in another respect: “The media pounding that Obama took from Republicans in the state will still take a toll on him in November,” Mr. Yepsen said, “That leaves a taste in the mouth.”
Monday, July 9, 2012
Presidential Geography: Utah
The 2012 presidential election is about four months away and there is still a lot of 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 are going to take a state by state look at each state throughout the next few months. Next up is the Utah.
UTAH:
If only Grover Cleveland could have known.
On Jan. 4, 1896, President Cleveland, a Democrat, made Utah the 45th state. One hundred and sixteen years later, Utah is perhaps the most Republican state in the union, having voted Republican by at least 19 percentage points in every presidential election after 1964.
Its majority Mormon population makes the state very conservative on social issues, and in 2012, Utah is probably a safer bet to vote for Mitt Romney, himself a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, than the District of Columbia is to vote for President Obama.
But the constancy of Utah’s conservative instincts in presidential elections is only recent, and it obscures a more moderate inclination on some issues. The reason Utah is so Republican in presidential elections – the influence of Mormonism on Utah’s culture and politics – is also one of the reasons the state has taken less hard-line positions in other arenas, like immigration.
Just over 62 percent of Utah is Mormon, and 75 percent of Utah voters in 2008 identified themselves as Mormon, according to exit polls. The Mormon faith colors Utah culture to a remarkable extent. Among the faithful, consumption of alcohol, tobacco and caffeine is prohibited. Families are big; Utah has more children per capita than any other state and the lowest rate of out-of-wedlock births. Utah also has the highest rate of volunteerism in the nation.
In today’s politics, Utah’s majority Mormon population translates into an overwhelming Republican advantage in presidential elections. But that wasn’t always the case. “Until the beginning of the 1970s, Utah’s partisan politics was very divided and balanced,” Mr. Chambless said. Then, on a range of issues, from Roe v. Wade to the Vietnam War protests, “it was the state’s Republican Party that seized the popular political positions.”
Today, a majority of Mormon voters in Utah have two nonnegotiable litmus tests, Mr. Chambless said: abortion and same-sex marriage. This alone makes the state virtually impossible for a Democratic presidential candidate to carry.
But on other issues, Utah has taken more moderate stances than might be implied by the state’s voting record. For instance, Utah has tended to vote more Republican than Arizona, but Utah has taken a much more moderate approach to illegal immigration than Arizona — in large part due to appeals from L.D.S. leaders, Mr. Chambless said. Thirteen percent of Utah’s population is Hispanic, and more than 100,000 illegal immigrants are estimated to live within its borders.
Rather than follow Arizona’s lead, Utah, in March 2011, became the first state to establish its own guest worker program, in which illegal immigrants without a criminal record who pay a fine can get a work permit. Utah is one of only three states where illegal immigrants can legally drive a car.
In 2008, Utah’s governor, Jon M. Huntsman Jr., won re-election aftercampaigning on investing in renewable energy and instituting stricter regulations to protect the environment.
Indeed, without the strong social conservatism of the Mormon faith, Utah might be a bit more amenable to Democratic candidates. Although geographically the state is rural, demographically Utah is urban. Vast expanses of the state in the south are devoted to national parks, but about 75 percent of the state’s population lives in small cities and suburbs in the Wasatch Front, from Provo north through Salt Lake City to Ogden.
Salt Lake City has become more diverse, and Salt Lake County is now a swing county in some elections. Mr. Obama carried it by 296 votes in 2008, and the Republican governor, Gary R. Herbert, won it in 2010 with 51 percent of the vote. Liberal pockets can be found, of all places, right around the L.D.S. headquarters in Salt Lake City, where many professional, non-Mormon migrants have settled. To the east, Park City, home to the Sundance Film Festival, is also fairly liberal.
The Bellwether: Tooele County
To the west of Salt Lake City, affordable suburban housing has made Tooele one of the fastest-growing counties in the state. In the 2000 election, Tooele was 4 to 6 percentage points off of each candidate’s statewide vote share. But Tooele County’s rapid population growth has made it a better barometer for the statewide margin in the last two elections, missing by 1 percentage point or less.
The Bottom Line
Mr. Romney has a 100 percent chance of winning Utah’s six electoral votes, according to the current FiveThirtyEight forecast. And that seems low.
Utah has been safe Republican territory in recent presidential elections. Add to that the fact that Mr. Romney and a majority of Utahans share a faith and that Mr. Romney spearheaded the Salt Lake City Olympics, and the question Utah politicos are asking themselves isn’t who will win the presidential race in the state, but whether turnout for Mr. Romney will also wash away down-ballot Democrats.
Utah’s Mormon majority has shrunk slightly. But as long as it is still a majority, and as long as Democrats nominate pro-choice, pro-same-sex marriage presidential candidates, Utah will probably remain Republican.
“Although Utah is becoming far more diverse — culturally and ethnically — religion is still the No. 1 political litmus test for candidates seeking statewide office,” Mr. Chambless said.
The New York Times and Micah Cohen are going to take a state by state look at each state throughout the next few months. Next up is the Utah.
UTAH:
If only Grover Cleveland could have known.
On Jan. 4, 1896, President Cleveland, a Democrat, made Utah the 45th state. One hundred and sixteen years later, Utah is perhaps the most Republican state in the union, having voted Republican by at least 19 percentage points in every presidential election after 1964.
Its majority Mormon population makes the state very conservative on social issues, and in 2012, Utah is probably a safer bet to vote for Mitt Romney, himself a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, than the District of Columbia is to vote for President Obama.
But the constancy of Utah’s conservative instincts in presidential elections is only recent, and it obscures a more moderate inclination on some issues. The reason Utah is so Republican in presidential elections – the influence of Mormonism on Utah’s culture and politics – is also one of the reasons the state has taken less hard-line positions in other arenas, like immigration.
Just over 62 percent of Utah is Mormon, and 75 percent of Utah voters in 2008 identified themselves as Mormon, according to exit polls. The Mormon faith colors Utah culture to a remarkable extent. Among the faithful, consumption of alcohol, tobacco and caffeine is prohibited. Families are big; Utah has more children per capita than any other state and the lowest rate of out-of-wedlock births. Utah also has the highest rate of volunteerism in the nation.
In today’s politics, Utah’s majority Mormon population translates into an overwhelming Republican advantage in presidential elections. But that wasn’t always the case. “Until the beginning of the 1970s, Utah’s partisan politics was very divided and balanced,” Mr. Chambless said. Then, on a range of issues, from Roe v. Wade to the Vietnam War protests, “it was the state’s Republican Party that seized the popular political positions.”
Today, a majority of Mormon voters in Utah have two nonnegotiable litmus tests, Mr. Chambless said: abortion and same-sex marriage. This alone makes the state virtually impossible for a Democratic presidential candidate to carry.
But on other issues, Utah has taken more moderate stances than might be implied by the state’s voting record. For instance, Utah has tended to vote more Republican than Arizona, but Utah has taken a much more moderate approach to illegal immigration than Arizona — in large part due to appeals from L.D.S. leaders, Mr. Chambless said. Thirteen percent of Utah’s population is Hispanic, and more than 100,000 illegal immigrants are estimated to live within its borders.
Rather than follow Arizona’s lead, Utah, in March 2011, became the first state to establish its own guest worker program, in which illegal immigrants without a criminal record who pay a fine can get a work permit. Utah is one of only three states where illegal immigrants can legally drive a car.
In 2008, Utah’s governor, Jon M. Huntsman Jr., won re-election aftercampaigning on investing in renewable energy and instituting stricter regulations to protect the environment.
Indeed, without the strong social conservatism of the Mormon faith, Utah might be a bit more amenable to Democratic candidates. Although geographically the state is rural, demographically Utah is urban. Vast expanses of the state in the south are devoted to national parks, but about 75 percent of the state’s population lives in small cities and suburbs in the Wasatch Front, from Provo north through Salt Lake City to Ogden.
Salt Lake City has become more diverse, and Salt Lake County is now a swing county in some elections. Mr. Obama carried it by 296 votes in 2008, and the Republican governor, Gary R. Herbert, won it in 2010 with 51 percent of the vote. Liberal pockets can be found, of all places, right around the L.D.S. headquarters in Salt Lake City, where many professional, non-Mormon migrants have settled. To the east, Park City, home to the Sundance Film Festival, is also fairly liberal.
The Bellwether: Tooele County
To the west of Salt Lake City, affordable suburban housing has made Tooele one of the fastest-growing counties in the state. In the 2000 election, Tooele was 4 to 6 percentage points off of each candidate’s statewide vote share. But Tooele County’s rapid population growth has made it a better barometer for the statewide margin in the last two elections, missing by 1 percentage point or less.
The Bottom Line
Mr. Romney has a 100 percent chance of winning Utah’s six electoral votes, according to the current FiveThirtyEight forecast. And that seems low.
Utah has been safe Republican territory in recent presidential elections. Add to that the fact that Mr. Romney and a majority of Utahans share a faith and that Mr. Romney spearheaded the Salt Lake City Olympics, and the question Utah politicos are asking themselves isn’t who will win the presidential race in the state, but whether turnout for Mr. Romney will also wash away down-ballot Democrats.
Utah’s Mormon majority has shrunk slightly. But as long as it is still a majority, and as long as Democrats nominate pro-choice, pro-same-sex marriage presidential candidates, Utah will probably remain Republican.
“Although Utah is becoming far more diverse — culturally and ethnically — religion is still the No. 1 political litmus test for candidates seeking statewide office,” Mr. Chambless said.
Sunday, July 8, 2012
Presidential Geography: DC
The 2012 presidential election is about four months away and there is still a lot of 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 are going to take a state by state look at each state throughout the next few months. Next up is the District of Columbia.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA:
If New Hampshire is a light-blue state and Massachusetts is a dark-blue one, perhaps electoral cartographers should come up with a color of its own for the District of Columbia. In 1980, Ronald Reagan lost the district to Jimmy Carter by 61 percentage points. That margin is about the closest a Republican candidate has come since Washington began participating in presidential elections in 1964 (Richard Nixon lost Washington by a mere 56.5 percent in 1972).
The 2012 election will be no different. On Nov. 6, President Obama will win an overwhelming share of the vote.
It isn’t hard to figure out why. Washington is a city, and a city with a large black community. Most cities vote Democratic, and many do so overwhelmingly. But those that vote Democratic by the widest margins of all, like Oakland, Newark, Washington and Detroit, are usually those with the largest black populations.
Black residents became a majority in Washington in the 1960 census, but they always made up a large portion of Washington’s population. In the 1790s, about 1 in 4 Washington residents were black. In the 1970s, the black population peaked at 71 percent, after many white residents moved to the suburbs.
Over the last decade, however, Washington’s economy has thrived, and young, affluent, mostly white professionals have flooded into the city. Highly educated new residents flowed into downtown neighborhoods like Chinatown and the Penn Quarter, forming white pluralities. Forty-nine percent of adults in the District of Columbia now have a college degree.
At the same time, many middle-class black families have followed the opposite path and moved to suburban communities in Maryland and Virginia. And the high-income newcomers have forced rents and property taxes up in many neighborhoods, pushing out less wealthy longtime residents, many of them black.
The 2010 census found the city’s black majority barely intact, and demographers have reported that the black share of the population may have fallen below 50 percent since then.
Calls to limit gentrification of black neighborhoods have increased. In a city where the electoral choice is between left and further left, many voters now judge local candidates by whether they seem to represent new residents or old, Ms. Norton said. The city is plagued by gaps in both education and income.
But the changing racial makeup of Washington has not changed its voting patterns — almost everyone still votes for the Democrat. Washington has a large number of students and faculty members at colleges and universities. And, of course, it has a large number of public-sector workers, another core Democratic constituency.
Both longtime and new Washingtonians share unhappiness over the district’s lack of a voting member of Congress, said Ms. Norton, who can serve on committees and speak on the House floor but cannot vote on legislation. Efforts to give Washington’s representative voting rights in Congress have come close to success, but have so far failed. More than 600,000 Washingtonians are still taxed without representation, or at least without voting representation.
So on Independence Day, a holiday marking, in part, the struggle for political representation, Ms. Norton was planning to walk in a Fourth of July parade. But, while most people would be carrying an American flag, “I will be waving a District of Columbia flag” to symbolize Washingtonians’ struggle for full voting rights, she said.
The Bottom Line
Unless Mitt Romney personally beats back an alien invasion — and maybe not even then — Mr. Obama will win the District of Columbia’s three electoral votes.
The New York Times and Micah Cohen are going to take a state by state look at each state throughout the next few months. Next up is the District of Columbia.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA:
If New Hampshire is a light-blue state and Massachusetts is a dark-blue one, perhaps electoral cartographers should come up with a color of its own for the District of Columbia. In 1980, Ronald Reagan lost the district to Jimmy Carter by 61 percentage points. That margin is about the closest a Republican candidate has come since Washington began participating in presidential elections in 1964 (Richard Nixon lost Washington by a mere 56.5 percent in 1972).
The 2012 election will be no different. On Nov. 6, President Obama will win an overwhelming share of the vote.
It isn’t hard to figure out why. Washington is a city, and a city with a large black community. Most cities vote Democratic, and many do so overwhelmingly. But those that vote Democratic by the widest margins of all, like Oakland, Newark, Washington and Detroit, are usually those with the largest black populations.
Black residents became a majority in Washington in the 1960 census, but they always made up a large portion of Washington’s population. In the 1790s, about 1 in 4 Washington residents were black. In the 1970s, the black population peaked at 71 percent, after many white residents moved to the suburbs.
Over the last decade, however, Washington’s economy has thrived, and young, affluent, mostly white professionals have flooded into the city. Highly educated new residents flowed into downtown neighborhoods like Chinatown and the Penn Quarter, forming white pluralities. Forty-nine percent of adults in the District of Columbia now have a college degree.
At the same time, many middle-class black families have followed the opposite path and moved to suburban communities in Maryland and Virginia. And the high-income newcomers have forced rents and property taxes up in many neighborhoods, pushing out less wealthy longtime residents, many of them black.
The 2010 census found the city’s black majority barely intact, and demographers have reported that the black share of the population may have fallen below 50 percent since then.
Calls to limit gentrification of black neighborhoods have increased. In a city where the electoral choice is between left and further left, many voters now judge local candidates by whether they seem to represent new residents or old, Ms. Norton said. The city is plagued by gaps in both education and income.
But the changing racial makeup of Washington has not changed its voting patterns — almost everyone still votes for the Democrat. Washington has a large number of students and faculty members at colleges and universities. And, of course, it has a large number of public-sector workers, another core Democratic constituency.
Both longtime and new Washingtonians share unhappiness over the district’s lack of a voting member of Congress, said Ms. Norton, who can serve on committees and speak on the House floor but cannot vote on legislation. Efforts to give Washington’s representative voting rights in Congress have come close to success, but have so far failed. More than 600,000 Washingtonians are still taxed without representation, or at least without voting representation.
So on Independence Day, a holiday marking, in part, the struggle for political representation, Ms. Norton was planning to walk in a Fourth of July parade. But, while most people would be carrying an American flag, “I will be waving a District of Columbia flag” to symbolize Washingtonians’ struggle for full voting rights, she said.
The Bottom Line
Unless Mitt Romney personally beats back an alien invasion — and maybe not even then — Mr. Obama will win the District of Columbia’s three electoral votes.
Thursday, July 5, 2012
Presidential Geography: West Virginia
The 2012 presidential election is about four months away and there is still a lot of 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 are going to take a state by state look at each state throughout the next few months. Next up is West Virginia.
WEST VIRGINIA:
Barring a truly shocking turn of events, Mitt Romney will win West Virginia’s five electoral votes. The state is rural, culturally conservative and religious. Of the 50 states, West Virginia has the fifth highest share of gun owners, the third oldest median age and one of the least diverse and least educated populations — all variables associated with Republican Party affiliation. After decades of Democratic dominance, West Virginia voted for the Republican candidate in the last three presidential elections.
Just like Georgia, the last state profiled in this series, West Virginia has gone from solid blue to solid red on presidential electoral maps. But unlike Georgia, West Virginia still elects Democrats in statewide races. Both of West Virginia’s senators are Democrats, as is the state’s governor. Democrats claims large majorities in the State Senate and the West Virginia House of Delegates. And Democrats still maintain almost a 2-1 registration edge over Republicans in the state.
How have Democrats maintained support in such a conservative state? And does the party’s remaining strength signal that West Virginia might once again become competitive in presidential campaigns?
Part of the answer to the first question is lingering loyalty. “You can always find someone at a rally who will say, ‘I would vote Republican, but my dad would kill me,’” Mr. Rupp said. The more fundamental answer, however, is that Democratic candidates in West Virginia often bear little resemblance to national Democrats. State Democrats tend to be more conservative on a range of issues. Moreover, they emphasize their independence from the national party. Just recently, Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin, Sen. Joe Manchin and Rep. Nick Rahall, all announced that they would not attend the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte.
The greatest sources of conflict between national and West Virginia Democrats are energy and environmental policies. Coal was the lifeblood of the state’s economy for decades, and — despite receding as an employer in the state — is still an integral part of the West Virginia psyche (the state’s flag features a farmer and coal miner). A pro-coal stance in West Virginia is as vital a component in electability as being from West Virginia.
It was Al Gore’s perceived hostility to coal and mountaintop mining that helped George W. Bush carry the state in 2000, after it had voted Democratic in 14 of the 17 presidential elections since the Great Depression, when West Virginia began electing Democrats in earnest.
Since the 2000 election, as national Democrats have pursued policies to lower greenhouse gas emissions, West Virginia Democrats have had to work even harder to show their pro-coal bonafides. Mr. Manchin, for example, actually shot the 2007 cap-and-trade bill in a campaign commercial (as governor, he also sued the Environmental Protection Agency over limits on mountaintop mining).
But King Coal’s power in the state may not last indefinitely. In 1948, 126,000 West Virginians worked in coalmines. In 2011, that number was 22,336.
As easily accessible coal seams have been depleted, the so-called “coal counties” in southern West Virginia have lost population. At the same time, less coal-centric areas of the state – the Washington D.C. exurbs in the eastern panhandle and the communities around Morgantown, where West Virginia University is located – have gained population, Mr. Plein said. The coal industry has also been hurt by a boom in cheap natural gas in the Marcellus Shale. About 2,000 coal mining jobs have been shed in just the last few months.
Many West Virginians are looking to other industries, such as tourism, to replace resource extraction as the state’s economic backbone. Wal-Mart is currently the biggest employer in the state.
Still, the coal industry remains politically potent. Late last month, when West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller gave a floor speech in favor of an Obama administration rule that the coal industry opposes, it was interpreted as proof that Mr. Rockefeller was planning to retire.
The Bellwether
On Nov. 6, Election Day, those who are particularly impatient for West Virginia election results can look to Marshall County for clues. Part of West Virginia’s northern panhandle, Marshall County — like much of north West Virginia – is culturally and economically part of the Pittsburgh area. In the last three elections, Marshall voters have been a virtually perfect barometer of the statewide vote, matching it exactly in 2008 when both the state and county voted 53 percent to 43 percent for Senator John McCain.
The Bottom Line
The FiveThirtyEight model currently gives Mr. Obama just a 5 percent chance of winning in West Virginia. Mr. Romney is projected to expand on Senator John McCain’s 2008 margin of victory.
Compounding the issue-specific rightward pull on state Democrats, there is also an absence of a leftward pull. While a state like Georgia has large urban and minority communities, which tend to elect fairly liberal Democrats, West Virginia is 94 percent white and rural. There just aren’t that many liberal or progressive voters in West Virginia. In 2008, 48 percent of voters were Democrats, but just 18 percent of voters described themselves as liberal, according to exit polls.
The diminishing impact of coal as a political force in the state may be a hopeful sign for Democrats. But as long as there are major issues — like energy — where the positions of the national Democratic Party (and thus Democratic presidential candidates) are anathema in West Virginia, it is likely Republicans will continue to win the state in presidential elections.
The more immediate question is: will state-level races, where Democrats still dominate, begin to shift and match the state’s Republican preference in presidential elections?
“You can’t have a two-legged stool,” Mr. Rupp said, “at some point West Virginia is going to change.”
The New York Times and Micah Cohen are going to take a state by state look at each state throughout the next few months. Next up is West Virginia.
WEST VIRGINIA:
Barring a truly shocking turn of events, Mitt Romney will win West Virginia’s five electoral votes. The state is rural, culturally conservative and religious. Of the 50 states, West Virginia has the fifth highest share of gun owners, the third oldest median age and one of the least diverse and least educated populations — all variables associated with Republican Party affiliation. After decades of Democratic dominance, West Virginia voted for the Republican candidate in the last three presidential elections.
Just like Georgia, the last state profiled in this series, West Virginia has gone from solid blue to solid red on presidential electoral maps. But unlike Georgia, West Virginia still elects Democrats in statewide races. Both of West Virginia’s senators are Democrats, as is the state’s governor. Democrats claims large majorities in the State Senate and the West Virginia House of Delegates. And Democrats still maintain almost a 2-1 registration edge over Republicans in the state.
How have Democrats maintained support in such a conservative state? And does the party’s remaining strength signal that West Virginia might once again become competitive in presidential campaigns?
Part of the answer to the first question is lingering loyalty. “You can always find someone at a rally who will say, ‘I would vote Republican, but my dad would kill me,’” Mr. Rupp said. The more fundamental answer, however, is that Democratic candidates in West Virginia often bear little resemblance to national Democrats. State Democrats tend to be more conservative on a range of issues. Moreover, they emphasize their independence from the national party. Just recently, Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin, Sen. Joe Manchin and Rep. Nick Rahall, all announced that they would not attend the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte.
The greatest sources of conflict between national and West Virginia Democrats are energy and environmental policies. Coal was the lifeblood of the state’s economy for decades, and — despite receding as an employer in the state — is still an integral part of the West Virginia psyche (the state’s flag features a farmer and coal miner). A pro-coal stance in West Virginia is as vital a component in electability as being from West Virginia.
It was Al Gore’s perceived hostility to coal and mountaintop mining that helped George W. Bush carry the state in 2000, after it had voted Democratic in 14 of the 17 presidential elections since the Great Depression, when West Virginia began electing Democrats in earnest.
Since the 2000 election, as national Democrats have pursued policies to lower greenhouse gas emissions, West Virginia Democrats have had to work even harder to show their pro-coal bonafides. Mr. Manchin, for example, actually shot the 2007 cap-and-trade bill in a campaign commercial (as governor, he also sued the Environmental Protection Agency over limits on mountaintop mining).
But King Coal’s power in the state may not last indefinitely. In 1948, 126,000 West Virginians worked in coalmines. In 2011, that number was 22,336.
As easily accessible coal seams have been depleted, the so-called “coal counties” in southern West Virginia have lost population. At the same time, less coal-centric areas of the state – the Washington D.C. exurbs in the eastern panhandle and the communities around Morgantown, where West Virginia University is located – have gained population, Mr. Plein said. The coal industry has also been hurt by a boom in cheap natural gas in the Marcellus Shale. About 2,000 coal mining jobs have been shed in just the last few months.
Many West Virginians are looking to other industries, such as tourism, to replace resource extraction as the state’s economic backbone. Wal-Mart is currently the biggest employer in the state.
Still, the coal industry remains politically potent. Late last month, when West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller gave a floor speech in favor of an Obama administration rule that the coal industry opposes, it was interpreted as proof that Mr. Rockefeller was planning to retire.
The Bellwether
On Nov. 6, Election Day, those who are particularly impatient for West Virginia election results can look to Marshall County for clues. Part of West Virginia’s northern panhandle, Marshall County — like much of north West Virginia – is culturally and economically part of the Pittsburgh area. In the last three elections, Marshall voters have been a virtually perfect barometer of the statewide vote, matching it exactly in 2008 when both the state and county voted 53 percent to 43 percent for Senator John McCain.
The Bottom Line
The FiveThirtyEight model currently gives Mr. Obama just a 5 percent chance of winning in West Virginia. Mr. Romney is projected to expand on Senator John McCain’s 2008 margin of victory.
Compounding the issue-specific rightward pull on state Democrats, there is also an absence of a leftward pull. While a state like Georgia has large urban and minority communities, which tend to elect fairly liberal Democrats, West Virginia is 94 percent white and rural. There just aren’t that many liberal or progressive voters in West Virginia. In 2008, 48 percent of voters were Democrats, but just 18 percent of voters described themselves as liberal, according to exit polls.
The diminishing impact of coal as a political force in the state may be a hopeful sign for Democrats. But as long as there are major issues — like energy — where the positions of the national Democratic Party (and thus Democratic presidential candidates) are anathema in West Virginia, it is likely Republicans will continue to win the state in presidential elections.
The more immediate question is: will state-level races, where Democrats still dominate, begin to shift and match the state’s Republican preference in presidential elections?
“You can’t have a two-legged stool,” Mr. Rupp said, “at some point West Virginia is going to change.”
Sunday, July 1, 2012
Presidential Geography: Georgia
The 2012 presidential election is less than 5 months away and there is still a lot of 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 are going to take a state by state look at each state throughout the next few months. Next up is Georgia.
GEORGIA:
In 2003, when Sonny Perdue was sworn in as Georgia’s 81st governor, it was the first time in 131 years that the state had elected a Republican to its highest office. Democrats had dominated politics in Georgia for decades, but the state’s transformation into a Republican stronghold, once it began, was swift. Today, Republicans occupy every statewide office and control the Georgia Senate and the General Assembly.
Likewise, Republican presidential candidates have carried Georgia since 1996 and overperformed their nationwide popular vote in every election since Jimmy Carter, a native Georgian, was last on the ballot in 1980.
Yet, in 2008, the Obama campaign considered contesting the state. President Obama opened 25 field offices and managed to garner 47 percent of the vote and hold Senator John McCain to a 52-percent victory. Despite Georgia’s steady shift away from its Democratic roots, the state is often pointed to as the next possible Virginia or North Carolina, Southern states carried in 2008, for the first time in a long time, by a Democrat. And Georgia has been raised again as a possible Democratic target in 2012.
The reason: The number of minority residents in Georgia has increased dramatically, particularly in the Atlanta area. Black residents made up 31 percent of the state’s population in 2010, up from 26 percent 2000, and the percentage of Hispanic residents increased to 9 percent, from 5 percent.
But to an extent not evident in Virginia and North Carolina, there has been amass exodus of white Southerners from the Democratic Party, fueling the Republican ascendance. In 2008, just 23 percent of white voters in Georgia cast a ballot for Mr. Obama, the same share that voted for Senator John Kerry in 2004. In Virginia in 2008, that number was 39 percent. In North Carolina it was 35 percent. The difference is not enormous, but it seems enough to keep Georgia in Republican hands for the foreseeable future, Professor Black said, and Mitt Romney will likely have little trouble winning the state’s 16 electoral votes.
Most of the state’s voters are clustered in and around Atlanta, which anchors the ninth most populous metropolitan area in the nation. The city itself is overwhelmingly Democratic, and the surrounding counties, once solidly Republican, have become more competitive as Atlanta’s population — swelled by an influx of black migrants and Hispanic and Asian immigrants — has radiated outward.
The bulk of Democratic votes are still found in Fulton County, home to Atlanta; DeKalb County; which has one of the nation’s largest communities of affluent blacks; and Clayton County. But as middle-class blacks and Latinos have moved from Atlanta to the suburbs, Gwinnett, Cobb, Douglas, Rockdale and Newton Counties have all become more competitive.
Beyond Atlanta, areas of Democratic strength in Georgia are limited to the state’s midsize cities, like Augusta and Athens, and the Black Belt, a stripe of majority African-American counties running from south of Columbus in western Georgia to Augusta in the east.
Republicans are dominant everywhere else.
In northern Georgia, Mr. McCain won every county by at least 30 percentage points and more often by 50 to 60 points. The area’s lakes and mountains make it a popular destination for vacation homes and retirement communities. The region is predominantly white. Hispanics, not blacks, are the largest minority group, drawn to northern Georgia’s jobs in small manufacturing and agribusiness. Southern Georgia, where peanuts, tobacco and cotton are grown, is mostly farmland and more sparsely populated. The southeast is almost as solidly Republican as the north.
The Bellwether: Lowndes County
For an indication of what the final margin in Georgia might be on Nov. 6, look to Lowndes County. In the last three presidential elections, Lowndes voters have given each major-party candidate within 2 percentage points of their statewide share of the vote.
The Bottom Line
Through 2012, the voters Democrats have gained in Georgia from the state’s growing minority groups have largely been canceled out by the white voters the party has lost. Indeed, Mr. Obama has just a 3 percent chance of winning Georgia’s 16 electoral votes according to FiveThirtyEight’s current projections.
The Democratic fall in Georgia has been deeper and more complete than in Virginia and North Carolina. For instance, while Mr. Obama won large majorities of young voters in North Carolina and Virginia in 2008, he lost voters ages 18 to 29 in Georgia.
According to exit polls, the proportion of votes cast in Georgia by non-Hispanic whites has dropped over the last two decades, from 79 percent in the 1992 presidential election to 73 percent in 1996 and 2000 to 70 percent in 2004 to 65 percent in 2008. But it has not yet dropped enough for Democrats to rely so exclusively on minority support.
“You can’t win with one-fifth of the white vote in Georgia; more diversification can help the Democrats, but they also need to increase their share of the white vote,” Professor Black said. “Even though they’re a smaller majority, they’re still a majority.”
The New York Times and Micah Cohen are going to take a state by state look at each state throughout the next few months. Next up is Georgia.
GEORGIA:
In 2003, when Sonny Perdue was sworn in as Georgia’s 81st governor, it was the first time in 131 years that the state had elected a Republican to its highest office. Democrats had dominated politics in Georgia for decades, but the state’s transformation into a Republican stronghold, once it began, was swift. Today, Republicans occupy every statewide office and control the Georgia Senate and the General Assembly.
Likewise, Republican presidential candidates have carried Georgia since 1996 and overperformed their nationwide popular vote in every election since Jimmy Carter, a native Georgian, was last on the ballot in 1980.
Yet, in 2008, the Obama campaign considered contesting the state. President Obama opened 25 field offices and managed to garner 47 percent of the vote and hold Senator John McCain to a 52-percent victory. Despite Georgia’s steady shift away from its Democratic roots, the state is often pointed to as the next possible Virginia or North Carolina, Southern states carried in 2008, for the first time in a long time, by a Democrat. And Georgia has been raised again as a possible Democratic target in 2012.
The reason: The number of minority residents in Georgia has increased dramatically, particularly in the Atlanta area. Black residents made up 31 percent of the state’s population in 2010, up from 26 percent 2000, and the percentage of Hispanic residents increased to 9 percent, from 5 percent.
But to an extent not evident in Virginia and North Carolina, there has been amass exodus of white Southerners from the Democratic Party, fueling the Republican ascendance. In 2008, just 23 percent of white voters in Georgia cast a ballot for Mr. Obama, the same share that voted for Senator John Kerry in 2004. In Virginia in 2008, that number was 39 percent. In North Carolina it was 35 percent. The difference is not enormous, but it seems enough to keep Georgia in Republican hands for the foreseeable future, Professor Black said, and Mitt Romney will likely have little trouble winning the state’s 16 electoral votes.
Most of the state’s voters are clustered in and around Atlanta, which anchors the ninth most populous metropolitan area in the nation. The city itself is overwhelmingly Democratic, and the surrounding counties, once solidly Republican, have become more competitive as Atlanta’s population — swelled by an influx of black migrants and Hispanic and Asian immigrants — has radiated outward.
The bulk of Democratic votes are still found in Fulton County, home to Atlanta; DeKalb County; which has one of the nation’s largest communities of affluent blacks; and Clayton County. But as middle-class blacks and Latinos have moved from Atlanta to the suburbs, Gwinnett, Cobb, Douglas, Rockdale and Newton Counties have all become more competitive.
Beyond Atlanta, areas of Democratic strength in Georgia are limited to the state’s midsize cities, like Augusta and Athens, and the Black Belt, a stripe of majority African-American counties running from south of Columbus in western Georgia to Augusta in the east.
Republicans are dominant everywhere else.
In northern Georgia, Mr. McCain won every county by at least 30 percentage points and more often by 50 to 60 points. The area’s lakes and mountains make it a popular destination for vacation homes and retirement communities. The region is predominantly white. Hispanics, not blacks, are the largest minority group, drawn to northern Georgia’s jobs in small manufacturing and agribusiness. Southern Georgia, where peanuts, tobacco and cotton are grown, is mostly farmland and more sparsely populated. The southeast is almost as solidly Republican as the north.
The Bellwether: Lowndes County
For an indication of what the final margin in Georgia might be on Nov. 6, look to Lowndes County. In the last three presidential elections, Lowndes voters have given each major-party candidate within 2 percentage points of their statewide share of the vote.
The Bottom Line
Through 2012, the voters Democrats have gained in Georgia from the state’s growing minority groups have largely been canceled out by the white voters the party has lost. Indeed, Mr. Obama has just a 3 percent chance of winning Georgia’s 16 electoral votes according to FiveThirtyEight’s current projections.
The Democratic fall in Georgia has been deeper and more complete than in Virginia and North Carolina. For instance, while Mr. Obama won large majorities of young voters in North Carolina and Virginia in 2008, he lost voters ages 18 to 29 in Georgia.
According to exit polls, the proportion of votes cast in Georgia by non-Hispanic whites has dropped over the last two decades, from 79 percent in the 1992 presidential election to 73 percent in 1996 and 2000 to 70 percent in 2004 to 65 percent in 2008. But it has not yet dropped enough for Democrats to rely so exclusively on minority support.
“You can’t win with one-fifth of the white vote in Georgia; more diversification can help the Democrats, but they also need to increase their share of the white vote,” Professor Black said. “Even though they’re a smaller majority, they’re still a majority.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
