The 2012 presidential election is almost two 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 have been taking a state by state look at each state throughout the the weeks leading up to Election Day . Next up is Florida.
Florida:
The Republican Party has good reason to hold its national convention in Tampa, Fla. The Tampa area is the most competitive section of the most competitive region in one of the most competitive states in the nation — the perfect place to seek a glimmer of extra advantage in a closely-fought presidential contest.
In many ways, the Tampa area was the weakest link in the regional coalition that Barack Obama built to win Florida in 2008. The Tampa-St. Petersburg media market is home to a quarter of Florida’s registered Republicans, and Mr. Obama carried Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties — home to Tampa and St. Petersburg — by a smaller margin than Florida’s other major population centers. If Mitt Romney wants to win the state, it represents the most attractive target.
And winning Florida is a must for Mr. Romney. Based on the simulations that the FiveThirtyEight forecast model ran on Tuesday, Mr. Romney has only a 0.3 percent chance of winning the election if he loses the state.
It is hard to conceive of Mr. Romney winning the election but losing Florida because Florida is an ever-so-slightly Republican-leaning state. If he loses it, he’s probably having trouble elsewhere on the map as well. It’s quite unlikely that Mr. Romney loses Florida but wins a state like Michigan or Pennsylvania, for instance.
Still, the state is idiosyncratic enough that it could behave differently, moving in one direction while the other swing states move in another. Each party begins with some strengths and weaknesses in the state, and regions that are vital to its path to victory there.
Just over a third of Florida’s registered Democrats live in the Miami and West Palm Beach media markets, especially in Miami-Dade County, Broward County and Palm Beach County.
Broward County, in particular, is critical to Democratic margins in Florida. While Miami-Dade County is reliably Democratic, its large Cuban-American population leans Republican and keeps the county from tilting all the way to the left. Miami-Dade County is home to 58 percent of Florida’s Hispanic Republicans and 34 percent of Hispanic Democrats. Without Broward County, however, Mr. Obama would have lost Florida in 2008; his statewide margin of victory (204,577 votes) was less than his margin in Broward (252,948 votes).
Democratic support has grown more recently in Orlando, a historically Republican city and the second main population center in the Interstate 4 corridor (along with Tampa). Orlando’s Orange County was just marginally Democratic in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. Then — partly because of an influx of non-Cuban Hispanics — Mr. Obama carried Orange County fairly easily in 2008, and the county itself is probably out of reach for Republicans now.
“It’s really tipping the state,” Mr. deHaven-Smith said. A potential dream scenario for Democrats — and a nightmare for Republicans — is if the demographic shifts in this region are enough to shift Florida from being slightly Republican-leaning to strictly neutral, or slightly Democratic-leaning instead.
The Jacksonville area has also moved to the left, although from a more conservative starting point and for slightly different reasons. That region, which has a significant military presence, is known for its culturally moderate, business-oriented Republicans, Mr. Smith said. Former President George W. Bush won Jacksonville’s Duval County with 58 percent of the vote in both 2000 and 2004.
Those same voters are still a majority, but just barely. Duval County has become more competitive as its African-American population has grown and as black turnout has increased, Mr. deHaven-Smith said. In 2008, Mr. Obama lost Duval by just one percentage point.
West of Jacksonville — past liberal islands around the state capital, Tallahassee, and the home of the University of Florida, Gainesville — Florida begins to look and feel like its northern neighbors, Georgia and Alabama. Affectionately known as the “Redneck Riviera“, the Florida Panhandle’s beautiful beaches are dotted by resorts and military installations. The area is culturally conservative and heavily Republican, but most of the counties in the Panhandle are sparsely populated.
The last predominately Republican area of the state is southwest Florida, where a string of retirement communities stretch along the coast, giving the G.O.P. a solid base of reliable voters. More affluent retirees tend to live in Collier County, while more working-class retirees have settled in Charlotte County, Mr. deHaven-Smith said. But both communities, like Fort Myers’s Lee County and most of the rest of Florida, were hit hard by the collapse of the housing sector.
The Bellwether: Hillsborough County
That leaves the Tampa area as neutral — but critical — turf. Of course, both Democrats and Republicans can do a little worse in one region if they do a little better in another. But in general, carrying Tampa has been the final step for statewide winners. In every election since 1960 the presidential candidate who carried Florida has also carried Tampa’s Hillsborough County.
Economically and ethnically, Hillsborough County is a fairly good microcosm of America. The county’s Democratic core in Tampa is balanced by the city’s Republican suburbs, and recent Hispanic growth has been accompanied by exurban growth, maintaining the county’s partisan equilibrium.
The Bottom Line
Florida is the closest state according to the FiveThirtyEight forecast; Mr. Obama was a nominal 52 percent favorite there as of Tuesday, but it has flipped back and forth between the candidates many times.
Still, and particularly so long as Mr. Obama seems to hold a clearer advantage in other swing states like Ohio, it is much easier to conceive of Mr. Obama winning the election without Florida than Mr. Romney. For that reason, it represents more of an offensive state for him.
For over a year, Mr. Obama has been building an extensive infrastructure in the state, despite the state’s reputation for being dominated by the advertising “air war.” The Obama campaign has opened 73 field offices in Florida compared with the Romney campaign’s 28.
In Mr. Romney’s favor is Florida’s still struggling economy. In particular, the state’s housing sector continues to flounder. Apart from the general distaste that a poor economy can cultivate for an incumbent, the Obama campaign’s efforts to reach out to voters have been complicated by Florida’s many home foreclosures, which have uprooted thousands and rendered voter lists inaccurate.
Ultimately, the calculus for undecided Tampa voters is the same for Florida voters, which is much the same as it is for undecided voters elsewhere: how much is the president to blame for the tepid economic recovery, in Florida and the nation? And is Mr. Romney a suitable alternative? The way voters in Tampa answer those questions could help determine the next president.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
College Football Week 1 Preview
The long offseason is about to end on Thursday night. A full slate of action is ready to bring the nation back to their couches and stadiums. Like the last few years, I will be looking at each week's slate and seeing the top ones to watch and some other worth contests.
Games to highlight in Week 1:
No. 10 South Carolina at Vanderbilt (Thursday August 30th): The biggest game on Night 1. South Carolina can provide a preview of their talent against a less than stellar opponent.
Miami (OH) at No. 25 Ohio State (Saturday September 1st): How will Ohio State start this year with sanctions preventing them from a postseason?
Ohio at Penn State (Saturday September 1st): It's been one of the toughest offseasons for Penn State than most schools have faced since SMU in the 1980s. How will they play on the field?
Nevada at California (Saturday September 1st): There is potential for open offenses or ugly football. Something potentially to watch anyway you look at it.
Top 5 Games of Week 1:
#5 Notre Dame vs Navy (from Dublin, Ireland)(Saturday September 1st): This unique regular season contest will only add to this rivalry. Navy's scheme mixed with Notre Dame's potential on offense can provide a high scoring affair. There might be some testing out early before a lot of second half action. PICK: NOTRE DAME
#4 Georgia Tech at No. 13 Virginia Tech (Monday September 3rd): Virginia Tech is looking to start the year with a big conference win. George Tech will likely provide some punch, but the Hokies' skill start the separation. PICK: VIRGINIA TECH
#3 No.16 Clemson vs No. 23 Auburn (at Atlanta, GA)(Saturday September 1st): This non-conference game has slowly turned into an interesting "tiger" rivalry. Some back and forth scoring looks probably before a couple tricks by Clemson puts them in a good spot. Auburn's late rally falls short. PICK: CLEMSON
#2 No. 21 Boise State at No. 9 Michigan State (Friday August 31st): Can Boise State do it again? This year looks like a tougher challenge than most in the past. They seem to lack a couple of big stars like QB Kellen Moore was for the Broncos. They keep the Spartans on their toes until late. PICK: MICHIGAN STATE
#1 No. 12 Michigan vs No. 1 Alabama (at Dallas, TX)(Saturday September 1st): This game will serve as a yardstick for Michigan and QB Denard Robinson. The same might be said for Bama as they prepare to defense their title. There should be a lot of fireworks off the field in Dallas then some big hits early. As the game settles in, Robinson will be the biggest x-factor. He will determine if this game is close or a landslide in Alabama's favor. The Tide will pack a few too many punches for even Denard. Close for most of the 1st half before a big 3rd for Alabama. PICK: ALABAMA
The games are ready for kickoff. Time to get the taste of the offseason out of our mouths and see as the season starts to unfold. The games will slowly increase to some big time main events and the title picture will slowly become clearer.
The games are ready for kickoff. Time to get the taste of the offseason out of our mouths and see as the season starts to unfold. The games will slowly increase to some big time main events and the title picture will slowly become clearer.
Monday, August 27, 2012
College Football Week 1 Power Rankings
The temperature is about to get cooler. Before you know it, the leaves will start to fall from the trees. They are signs of the Fall and college football season. The dust is beyond cleared from the near romp of LSU by Alabama in the National Title Game in January. The rematch did not live up to the hype of the first contest. But, that is then and this is now. Alabama has lost multiple key players in that game. LSU will be without arguably their best athlete a year ago. However, the SEC still looks to be a dominant force like previous years. Besides Alabama and LSU; Arkansas, Georgia, and South Carolina can pose a threat to the ultimate crown this season. Out west, USC and Oregon will look to change the recent SEC dominance and Florida State and Virginia Tech out of the ACC will hope to make similar noise. Lastly, up the middle will come Oklahoma and Texas; familiar Big 12 favorites. While Michigan and Michigan State will provide some conversation from the Big Ten. Not all will be serious threats at the end of the day, but on Day 1; everyone is 0-0. With all that said, time to kick off the season with initial rankings.
1) Alabama- They might have lost talent, but still have a lot of it. There has been no repeat BCS Champion and that will only make the climb that much harder.
2) LSU- No Honey Badger. No major problem. They will miss him, but still are loaded. Offensive questions will need to be answered early if they are to return to the title game.
3) USC- It is hard to argue against the talent. Possible Heisman winner QB Matt Barkley will hope to finish the job for the Trojans after 2 years of waiting to be free of NCAA violation bans.
4) Oregon- Oregon has come up short 2 years in a row in terms of either winning it all or getting there. USC will likely be their only major obstacle and the two teams could provide two classics this year if everything aligns.
5) Oklahoma- Under Bob Stoops, they have continued to usually reload, but make little mistakes or suffer major injuries. They should have a pretty favorable path again to try to run the table with experience and talent.
6) Florida State- In the 1990s, there were probably few teams as dominant as the Seminoles. A rough decade of the early 2000s might be about to finally lead to a return to glory. They have one of the most talent athletes at quarterback in E.J. Manuel and a fairly soft conference for them to make multiple statements.
7) Georgia- The SEC's fog-like team. They have had talent with players like NFL stars Matthew Stafford or A.J. Green. But, they have struggled in the win column in a tough conference. They look prepared to try to break that curse and challenge Alabama and LSU and emerge the best in the SEC.
8) Arkansas- They have been on the rise and have a favorable schedule in terms of home-away games with tough SEC opponents. They have been under the radar and could make some noise. They have been close like Georgia at times.Can they finish the deal?
9) Michigan State- Gritty. That might be one of the best ways to describe this team. They win close games. They come from behind. They might be ready to take the next major step this eyar.
10) South Carolina- The fifth best SEC team could potentially rise to the top with some luck and big games. They have talent at the running back position with HB Mark Lattimore and Coach Steve Spurrier keeps the team focused each year.
11) Wisconsin- HB Monte Ball could be a Heisman contender again and this bruising style will guide the offense again as they hope to dodge both Michigan schools and any other potential traps.
12) Michigan- QB Denard Robinson might finally launch himself to the Heisman stage by staying healthy and putting up some big numbers like he showed glimpses of the past two years.
13) Virginia Tech- Death, taxes, and Virginia Tech. Things that are certain. Frank Beamer has the team competing for 10 wins most years. They have had some rough starts recently to end strong. A full season of strong performances could keep them in the title talk.
14) West Virginia- A new conference, new challenges, and a new year. That outlook and the talent of QB Geno Smith could showcase what role the Mountaineers will play in the national conversation.
15) Oklahoma State- They may be without their top quarterback and wide receiver from the last couple years, but the team has shown an ability to shake things up in the conventional Oklahoma-Texas world of the conference.
16) Clemson- They are a team that rose up big time last year. Can they correct some of the mistakes from last year? They can certainly win the ACC if they do.
17) Nebraska- They have stud athletes at some key spots on the field and if they hit hard early, they can shake up the Big Ten in their favor.
18) Texas- Youth has been the major issue the last two years. Can that turn into an advantage as they go full speed ahead in the Big 12?
19) Stanford- They will see some drop off without QB Andrew Luck, but don't be surprised if they cause some damage outside of USC and Oregon in the Pac-12.
20) TCU- A new conference, but a very similar team. They will see how they can handle running in a tougher conference.
21) Boise State- Back to that Virginia Tech argument. Boise State for much of the last decade is good for 10 wins. They open the year again with a marquee matchup (Michigan State).
22) Kansas State- They showed some signs of being a potential player in the Big 12. They might command the second tier and be a favorite from the north region.
23) Auburn- After a break from SEC teams, another emerges. They are only two seasons removed from a title and still play hard. They should show signs of improvement from last year.
24) Florida- The Gators like the Tigers have their rough moments, but can still play tough defense and possible sneak an upset.
25) Ohio State- They might be better than a couple teams ahead of them. But, they will need to go through a season like USC's last couple. Can they stay focus? Will this be prep for a couple years down the road when new coach Urban Meyer can unleash the dogs on the Big Ten and the rest of the country?
NEXT 5
1) Louisville- The Big East used to be West Virginia's to lose. Now Louisville has emerged as the early favorite to claim the crown of the "Big Least".
2) Notre Dame- I hesitate to put them in the Top 25 right away from some of their letdowns. Can they reclaim their glory and try to climb the polls like they did 5 years ago.
3) Washington- There is a lot of good vibes coming from Huskies' camp. They have had a few big wins in recent years and are looking to be more consistent.
4) Georgia Tech- Their option scheme keeps teams on their toes. Can they do enough to rack up wins?
5) Cincinnati- Outside of Louisville, they might be a strong contender to win the Big East and continue their success in the conference since coming over.
Now let's get the season started!
1) Alabama- They might have lost talent, but still have a lot of it. There has been no repeat BCS Champion and that will only make the climb that much harder.
2) LSU- No Honey Badger. No major problem. They will miss him, but still are loaded. Offensive questions will need to be answered early if they are to return to the title game.
3) USC- It is hard to argue against the talent. Possible Heisman winner QB Matt Barkley will hope to finish the job for the Trojans after 2 years of waiting to be free of NCAA violation bans.
4) Oregon- Oregon has come up short 2 years in a row in terms of either winning it all or getting there. USC will likely be their only major obstacle and the two teams could provide two classics this year if everything aligns.
5) Oklahoma- Under Bob Stoops, they have continued to usually reload, but make little mistakes or suffer major injuries. They should have a pretty favorable path again to try to run the table with experience and talent.
6) Florida State- In the 1990s, there were probably few teams as dominant as the Seminoles. A rough decade of the early 2000s might be about to finally lead to a return to glory. They have one of the most talent athletes at quarterback in E.J. Manuel and a fairly soft conference for them to make multiple statements.
7) Georgia- The SEC's fog-like team. They have had talent with players like NFL stars Matthew Stafford or A.J. Green. But, they have struggled in the win column in a tough conference. They look prepared to try to break that curse and challenge Alabama and LSU and emerge the best in the SEC.
8) Arkansas- They have been on the rise and have a favorable schedule in terms of home-away games with tough SEC opponents. They have been under the radar and could make some noise. They have been close like Georgia at times.Can they finish the deal?
9) Michigan State- Gritty. That might be one of the best ways to describe this team. They win close games. They come from behind. They might be ready to take the next major step this eyar.
10) South Carolina- The fifth best SEC team could potentially rise to the top with some luck and big games. They have talent at the running back position with HB Mark Lattimore and Coach Steve Spurrier keeps the team focused each year.
11) Wisconsin- HB Monte Ball could be a Heisman contender again and this bruising style will guide the offense again as they hope to dodge both Michigan schools and any other potential traps.
12) Michigan- QB Denard Robinson might finally launch himself to the Heisman stage by staying healthy and putting up some big numbers like he showed glimpses of the past two years.
13) Virginia Tech- Death, taxes, and Virginia Tech. Things that are certain. Frank Beamer has the team competing for 10 wins most years. They have had some rough starts recently to end strong. A full season of strong performances could keep them in the title talk.
14) West Virginia- A new conference, new challenges, and a new year. That outlook and the talent of QB Geno Smith could showcase what role the Mountaineers will play in the national conversation.
15) Oklahoma State- They may be without their top quarterback and wide receiver from the last couple years, but the team has shown an ability to shake things up in the conventional Oklahoma-Texas world of the conference.
16) Clemson- They are a team that rose up big time last year. Can they correct some of the mistakes from last year? They can certainly win the ACC if they do.
17) Nebraska- They have stud athletes at some key spots on the field and if they hit hard early, they can shake up the Big Ten in their favor.
18) Texas- Youth has been the major issue the last two years. Can that turn into an advantage as they go full speed ahead in the Big 12?
19) Stanford- They will see some drop off without QB Andrew Luck, but don't be surprised if they cause some damage outside of USC and Oregon in the Pac-12.
20) TCU- A new conference, but a very similar team. They will see how they can handle running in a tougher conference.
21) Boise State- Back to that Virginia Tech argument. Boise State for much of the last decade is good for 10 wins. They open the year again with a marquee matchup (Michigan State).
22) Kansas State- They showed some signs of being a potential player in the Big 12. They might command the second tier and be a favorite from the north region.
23) Auburn- After a break from SEC teams, another emerges. They are only two seasons removed from a title and still play hard. They should show signs of improvement from last year.
24) Florida- The Gators like the Tigers have their rough moments, but can still play tough defense and possible sneak an upset.
25) Ohio State- They might be better than a couple teams ahead of them. But, they will need to go through a season like USC's last couple. Can they stay focus? Will this be prep for a couple years down the road when new coach Urban Meyer can unleash the dogs on the Big Ten and the rest of the country?
NEXT 5
1) Louisville- The Big East used to be West Virginia's to lose. Now Louisville has emerged as the early favorite to claim the crown of the "Big Least".
2) Notre Dame- I hesitate to put them in the Top 25 right away from some of their letdowns. Can they reclaim their glory and try to climb the polls like they did 5 years ago.
3) Washington- There is a lot of good vibes coming from Huskies' camp. They have had a few big wins in recent years and are looking to be more consistent.
4) Georgia Tech- Their option scheme keeps teams on their toes. Can they do enough to rack up wins?
5) Cincinnati- Outside of Louisville, they might be a strong contender to win the Big East and continue their success in the conference since coming over.
Now let's get the season started!
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Presidential Geography: South Dakota
The 2012 presidential election is almost two 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 have been taking a state by state look at each state throughout the the weeks leading up to Election Day . Next up is South Dakota.
South Dakota:
South Dakota has always been a Republican state. Even with a missing finger, you could count on one hand the times the state has voted for a Democratic presidential candidate. The last Democrat to carry the state was Lyndon Johnson in 1964.
Gallup, measuring the percentage of residents in each state who identify with either the Democratic Party or Republican Party, ranked South Dakota as the ninth most Republican. It is one of the least diverse states and one of the top gun-owning states. Barring the unforeseen, Mitt Romney will win South Dakota’s three electoral votes.
Yet, South Dakota has several characteristics that allow Democrats — though rarely Democratic presidential candidates — to win statewide elections. First and foremost is the state’s agrarian roots.The state’s political culture has beendescribed as “agrarian conservatism,” and when the latter conflicts with the former, agrarian interests almost always take precedence.
In addition, South Dakota’s small population — less than 825,000 residents according to the Census Bureau’s 2011 estimate — enables charismatic campaigners, even Democrats, to compensate for ideological discrepancies between the candidate and the electorate.
Generally speaking, South Dakota goes from conservative in the east to more conservative in the west, Ms. Fouberg said.
In 2008, when President Obama lost the state by 8.5 percentage points, most of his strongest counties were in the east, in the Sioux Falls area, in Clay County where the University of South Dakota is based, and around Aberdeen. The only counties Mr. Obama won west of the James River were sparsely populated with large American Indian populations.
But eastern South Dakota is not liberal by any means. Mr. Obama carried Sioux Falls’s Minnehaha County by only 587 votes. There is more latent support for Democrats in the east partly because that is where the state’s populist movement was strongest, Mr. Card said. In 1890, South Dakota reformers founded the nation’s first populist party, the Independent Party, partly to help protect the family farm. Since then, when Republicans have lost at the ballot box, it’s often been to a populist, or populist-tinged, candidate campaigning on farming issues.
The easternmost slice of the state, where most South Dakotans live, is essentially an extension of the Corn Belt. Agriculture, including soybeans, corn, cattle and hogs, is still a major industry in South Dakota, but the state’s economy is more diversified than it once was, with substantial health care, manufacturing and financial services sectors. Tourism is also a major economic driver in South Dakota, largely because of Mount Rushmore, and the state’s unemployment rate has been well below the national average for some time.
Sioux Falls is a major hub for the credit card and banking industries, including Citibank, which was lured to South Dakota after the state eliminatedusury caps in the early 1980s. Without usury limits, the financial services sector ballooned. More than 18,000 people in South Dakota now work in financial services.
Traveling west the land becomes more arid and much less populated. Central and western South Dakota are part of the Great Plains, and — outside the counties with Democratic-leaning American Indian reservations — uniformly Republican. Native Americans, particularly Sioux tribes, are the only substantial minority group in South Dakota, making up 9 percent of the population. The far western edge of the state, around Rapid City in the Black Hills, also has a strong libertarian streak, Mr. Card said.
Considering how conservative the state is, Democratic candidates for House and Senate have done surprisingly well. During the last half-century, South Dakota has always had at least one Democratic senator or representative, a confusing tendency given the state’s consistent preference for Republicans in elections of presidents and governors.
But South Dakota is heavily reliant on the federal government, to support both farms and roads and infrastructure to connect such an expansive state. That fact has led many to conclude, Mr. Card said, “that we send our Democrats to bring home the bacon.”
The Bellwether: Codington County
Anchored by Watertown, Codington County was just one percentage point more Democratic than the statewide vote in 2008, just one point more Republican in 2004, and spot on in 2000.
“Codington County is a good mixture of farming, ranching, industry and service sectors,” Ms. Fouberg said, “Economically, it is a microcosm of the state.
The Bottom Line
With no major city, few minorities and few union members, there is barely an organized left in South Dakota, Mr. Miller said. “Even the university people aren’t that liberal,” he said.
In order to overcome South Dakota’s conservatism, Democratic candidates usually need an opening on agrarian issues. A good example is the 1986 election of Tom Daschle, the former majority leader in the Senate. The farm crisis of the 1980s was still haunting South Dakota, and Ronald Reagan’s farm policies were deeply unpopular in the state.
Mr. Daschle also took advantage of South Dakota’s small population, reportedly knocking on 40,000 doors during the campaign. During his time in office, Mr. Daschle would tour almost all of South Dakota’s 66 counties each August.
It is hard to imagine those circumstances applying to a Democratic presidential candidate. Neither major party has a clear advantage on farm issues, and a Democratic candidate would be loath to spend much time kissing South Dakotan babies for three electoral votes. The FiveThirtyEight model currently has Mr. Romney as a 98 percent favorite to carry the state, and — unless something unforeseen occurs — it is not likely South Dakota will favor a Democratic presidential candidate any time soon.
The New York Times and Micah Cohen have been taking a state by state look at each state throughout the the weeks leading up to Election Day . Next up is South Dakota.
South Dakota:
South Dakota has always been a Republican state. Even with a missing finger, you could count on one hand the times the state has voted for a Democratic presidential candidate. The last Democrat to carry the state was Lyndon Johnson in 1964.
Gallup, measuring the percentage of residents in each state who identify with either the Democratic Party or Republican Party, ranked South Dakota as the ninth most Republican. It is one of the least diverse states and one of the top gun-owning states. Barring the unforeseen, Mitt Romney will win South Dakota’s three electoral votes.
Yet, South Dakota has several characteristics that allow Democrats — though rarely Democratic presidential candidates — to win statewide elections. First and foremost is the state’s agrarian roots.The state’s political culture has beendescribed as “agrarian conservatism,” and when the latter conflicts with the former, agrarian interests almost always take precedence.
In addition, South Dakota’s small population — less than 825,000 residents according to the Census Bureau’s 2011 estimate — enables charismatic campaigners, even Democrats, to compensate for ideological discrepancies between the candidate and the electorate.
Generally speaking, South Dakota goes from conservative in the east to more conservative in the west, Ms. Fouberg said.
In 2008, when President Obama lost the state by 8.5 percentage points, most of his strongest counties were in the east, in the Sioux Falls area, in Clay County where the University of South Dakota is based, and around Aberdeen. The only counties Mr. Obama won west of the James River were sparsely populated with large American Indian populations.
But eastern South Dakota is not liberal by any means. Mr. Obama carried Sioux Falls’s Minnehaha County by only 587 votes. There is more latent support for Democrats in the east partly because that is where the state’s populist movement was strongest, Mr. Card said. In 1890, South Dakota reformers founded the nation’s first populist party, the Independent Party, partly to help protect the family farm. Since then, when Republicans have lost at the ballot box, it’s often been to a populist, or populist-tinged, candidate campaigning on farming issues.
The easternmost slice of the state, where most South Dakotans live, is essentially an extension of the Corn Belt. Agriculture, including soybeans, corn, cattle and hogs, is still a major industry in South Dakota, but the state’s economy is more diversified than it once was, with substantial health care, manufacturing and financial services sectors. Tourism is also a major economic driver in South Dakota, largely because of Mount Rushmore, and the state’s unemployment rate has been well below the national average for some time.
Sioux Falls is a major hub for the credit card and banking industries, including Citibank, which was lured to South Dakota after the state eliminatedusury caps in the early 1980s. Without usury limits, the financial services sector ballooned. More than 18,000 people in South Dakota now work in financial services.
Traveling west the land becomes more arid and much less populated. Central and western South Dakota are part of the Great Plains, and — outside the counties with Democratic-leaning American Indian reservations — uniformly Republican. Native Americans, particularly Sioux tribes, are the only substantial minority group in South Dakota, making up 9 percent of the population. The far western edge of the state, around Rapid City in the Black Hills, also has a strong libertarian streak, Mr. Card said.
Considering how conservative the state is, Democratic candidates for House and Senate have done surprisingly well. During the last half-century, South Dakota has always had at least one Democratic senator or representative, a confusing tendency given the state’s consistent preference for Republicans in elections of presidents and governors.
But South Dakota is heavily reliant on the federal government, to support both farms and roads and infrastructure to connect such an expansive state. That fact has led many to conclude, Mr. Card said, “that we send our Democrats to bring home the bacon.”
The Bellwether: Codington County
Anchored by Watertown, Codington County was just one percentage point more Democratic than the statewide vote in 2008, just one point more Republican in 2004, and spot on in 2000.
“Codington County is a good mixture of farming, ranching, industry and service sectors,” Ms. Fouberg said, “Economically, it is a microcosm of the state.
The Bottom Line
With no major city, few minorities and few union members, there is barely an organized left in South Dakota, Mr. Miller said. “Even the university people aren’t that liberal,” he said.
In order to overcome South Dakota’s conservatism, Democratic candidates usually need an opening on agrarian issues. A good example is the 1986 election of Tom Daschle, the former majority leader in the Senate. The farm crisis of the 1980s was still haunting South Dakota, and Ronald Reagan’s farm policies were deeply unpopular in the state.
Mr. Daschle also took advantage of South Dakota’s small population, reportedly knocking on 40,000 doors during the campaign. During his time in office, Mr. Daschle would tour almost all of South Dakota’s 66 counties each August.
It is hard to imagine those circumstances applying to a Democratic presidential candidate. Neither major party has a clear advantage on farm issues, and a Democratic candidate would be loath to spend much time kissing South Dakotan babies for three electoral votes. The FiveThirtyEight model currently has Mr. Romney as a 98 percent favorite to carry the state, and — unless something unforeseen occurs — it is not likely South Dakota will favor a Democratic presidential candidate any time soon.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Presidential Geography: Missouri
The 2012 presidential election is less 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 have been taking a state by state look at each state throughout the the weeks leading up to Election Day . Next up is Missouri.
Missouri:
Like the Four Corners Monument — which sits at the intersection of four states — Missouri sits at a regional crossroads.
Depending on your perspective, Missouri is either the southernmost northern state, it reaches farther south than any state in the Midwest, or the northernmost southern state, it was a slave state in the 1850s.
Missouri is also where the eastern United States meets the frontier West.
Missouri “has the western most industrial city and the eastern most cow town,” Mr. Robertson said.
For nearly a century of presidential elections, Missouri lived up to its regional representativeness, backing every winning presidential candidate but one from 1904 through 2004. But beginning in 1996, Missouri’s bellwether status began to show cracks. The state began to consistently vote more Republican than the nation, and in 2008, Missouri backed the Electoral College runner-up. It was the only battleground statecarried by Senator John McCain.
In this year’s race, despite the slight edge that President Obama has nationally according to the current FiveThirtyEight forecast, Mitt Romney seems a solid favorite in Missouri. Instead, the state’s United States Senate contest, which was thrust into the news this week because of the Republican candidate Todd Akin’s statement on rape and abortion, may provide a better test of just how far Missouri has moved to the right, a shift caused by a number of factors.
First, white, culturally conservative, working-class voters in rural Missouri, following a trend (PDF) evident in Deep South states like Georgia, began leaving the Democratic Party. The exodus was slower and more subtle in Missouri than in the Deep South, Mr. Calfano said, but it has made a difference.
In Missouri’s northern neighbor, Iowa, Democrats still win a fair number of rural counties. But in Missouri, the farming counties in the north and the relatively poor southeast, around the boot heel, now reliably vote Republican.
Rural “counties that voted for Bill Clinton probably aren’t going to vote for a Democrat for a good number of years to come,” Mr. Robertson said.
In addition to the Republican rise in rural Missouri, the state has also been moved to the right by population growth in its traditional Republican strongholds, which have been gaining population at a faster rate than Missouri’s Democratic-leaning areas. Southwestern Missouri, a longtime Republican bastion with a strong evangelical Christian culture, and the suburbs and exurbs of St. Louis, which are home to traditional, more fiscally focused Republicans, have both gained residents (PDF) over the last decade. Missouri’s main Democratic vote centers, on the other hand, grew slowly or not at all.
Kansas City and St. Louis are still overwhelmingly Democratic, with large, mostly black minority populations. But Kansas City, Missouri’s largest city, grew by just 6 percent (PDF) from 2000 to 2007, and metro St. Louis actually lost 1 percent (PDF) of its population over that period, as many of its residents left for the suburbs.
Thanks partly to retirees settling around Branson, Springfield and the Lake of the Ozarks region, southwestern Missouri grew 9 percent (PDF) from 2000 to 2007. And over the same period, as the city emptied out, the St. Louis suburbs grew by 15 percent (PDF). More votes are now cast in St. Charles County, a heavily Republican suburban and exurban county, than in the city of St. Louis.
The Bellwether: Clay County
For an early clue as to how Missouri might vote on Nov. 6, look to Clay County, which includes Kansas City suburbs as well as part of the city itself. Clay County exactly matched the statewide presidential vote in 2008 and 2004. In 2000, it was off by only 2 percentage points.
The Bottom Line
The FiveThirtyEight model currently makes Mr. Romney a 79 percent favorite in Missouri, and the state is not likely to play a decisive role electorally; Missouri is not among FiveThirtyEight’s top 15 tipping point states.
Rather, it is the Senate race in Missouri that has received the bulk of political attention, even before Representative Akin — a Republican seeking to unseat the Democratic senator, Claire McCaskill — made his comments on rape and abortion.
So the Senate race may provide a good measurement of Missouri’s current political landscape. Missouri’s shift to the right is evidenced in the viability of Mr. Akin, a deeply conservative Republican congressman, who was leading Ms. McCaskill in most polls before his comments led to calls for him to withdraw.
Since his comments, however, Mr. Akin’s advantage is more tenuous. A Public Policy Polling survey, taken after the issue became a national debate, shows the race as a tossup. Has Missouri moved far enough to the right to save Mr. Akin?
“While it’s safe to say that Missouri is likely a center-right state now,” Mr. Calfano said, “the Akin controversy might be an indicator of an upper bound on how much the state electorate will tolerate right-wing rhetoric.”
In fact, Ms. McCaskill is vulnerable not so much because she is a Democrat — Jay Nixon, Missouri’s Democratic governor is expected to win re-election relatively easily — but because she aligned herself so closely with President Obama, who is unpopular there, Mr. Calfano said.
That might be reassuring to Missouri Democrats, who can still win races if they hew to the ideological center. But the fact that Ms. McCaskill’s ties with Mr. Obama are such a liability in Missouri shows the steep hill he would have to climb to win the state’s 10 electoral votes.
“If Romney is putting money in here and competing for it in October,” Mr. Robertson said, “he’s in real big trouble.”
The New York Times and Micah Cohen have been taking a state by state look at each state throughout the the weeks leading up to Election Day . Next up is Missouri.
Missouri:
Like the Four Corners Monument — which sits at the intersection of four states — Missouri sits at a regional crossroads.
Depending on your perspective, Missouri is either the southernmost northern state, it reaches farther south than any state in the Midwest, or the northernmost southern state, it was a slave state in the 1850s.
Missouri is also where the eastern United States meets the frontier West.
Missouri “has the western most industrial city and the eastern most cow town,” Mr. Robertson said.
For nearly a century of presidential elections, Missouri lived up to its regional representativeness, backing every winning presidential candidate but one from 1904 through 2004. But beginning in 1996, Missouri’s bellwether status began to show cracks. The state began to consistently vote more Republican than the nation, and in 2008, Missouri backed the Electoral College runner-up. It was the only battleground statecarried by Senator John McCain.
In this year’s race, despite the slight edge that President Obama has nationally according to the current FiveThirtyEight forecast, Mitt Romney seems a solid favorite in Missouri. Instead, the state’s United States Senate contest, which was thrust into the news this week because of the Republican candidate Todd Akin’s statement on rape and abortion, may provide a better test of just how far Missouri has moved to the right, a shift caused by a number of factors.
First, white, culturally conservative, working-class voters in rural Missouri, following a trend (PDF) evident in Deep South states like Georgia, began leaving the Democratic Party. The exodus was slower and more subtle in Missouri than in the Deep South, Mr. Calfano said, but it has made a difference.
In Missouri’s northern neighbor, Iowa, Democrats still win a fair number of rural counties. But in Missouri, the farming counties in the north and the relatively poor southeast, around the boot heel, now reliably vote Republican.
Rural “counties that voted for Bill Clinton probably aren’t going to vote for a Democrat for a good number of years to come,” Mr. Robertson said.
In addition to the Republican rise in rural Missouri, the state has also been moved to the right by population growth in its traditional Republican strongholds, which have been gaining population at a faster rate than Missouri’s Democratic-leaning areas. Southwestern Missouri, a longtime Republican bastion with a strong evangelical Christian culture, and the suburbs and exurbs of St. Louis, which are home to traditional, more fiscally focused Republicans, have both gained residents (PDF) over the last decade. Missouri’s main Democratic vote centers, on the other hand, grew slowly or not at all.
Kansas City and St. Louis are still overwhelmingly Democratic, with large, mostly black minority populations. But Kansas City, Missouri’s largest city, grew by just 6 percent (PDF) from 2000 to 2007, and metro St. Louis actually lost 1 percent (PDF) of its population over that period, as many of its residents left for the suburbs.
Thanks partly to retirees settling around Branson, Springfield and the Lake of the Ozarks region, southwestern Missouri grew 9 percent (PDF) from 2000 to 2007. And over the same period, as the city emptied out, the St. Louis suburbs grew by 15 percent (PDF). More votes are now cast in St. Charles County, a heavily Republican suburban and exurban county, than in the city of St. Louis.
The Bellwether: Clay County
For an early clue as to how Missouri might vote on Nov. 6, look to Clay County, which includes Kansas City suburbs as well as part of the city itself. Clay County exactly matched the statewide presidential vote in 2008 and 2004. In 2000, it was off by only 2 percentage points.
The Bottom Line
The FiveThirtyEight model currently makes Mr. Romney a 79 percent favorite in Missouri, and the state is not likely to play a decisive role electorally; Missouri is not among FiveThirtyEight’s top 15 tipping point states.
Rather, it is the Senate race in Missouri that has received the bulk of political attention, even before Representative Akin — a Republican seeking to unseat the Democratic senator, Claire McCaskill — made his comments on rape and abortion.
So the Senate race may provide a good measurement of Missouri’s current political landscape. Missouri’s shift to the right is evidenced in the viability of Mr. Akin, a deeply conservative Republican congressman, who was leading Ms. McCaskill in most polls before his comments led to calls for him to withdraw.
Since his comments, however, Mr. Akin’s advantage is more tenuous. A Public Policy Polling survey, taken after the issue became a national debate, shows the race as a tossup. Has Missouri moved far enough to the right to save Mr. Akin?
“While it’s safe to say that Missouri is likely a center-right state now,” Mr. Calfano said, “the Akin controversy might be an indicator of an upper bound on how much the state electorate will tolerate right-wing rhetoric.”
In fact, Ms. McCaskill is vulnerable not so much because she is a Democrat — Jay Nixon, Missouri’s Democratic governor is expected to win re-election relatively easily — but because she aligned herself so closely with President Obama, who is unpopular there, Mr. Calfano said.
That might be reassuring to Missouri Democrats, who can still win races if they hew to the ideological center. But the fact that Ms. McCaskill’s ties with Mr. Obama are such a liability in Missouri shows the steep hill he would have to climb to win the state’s 10 electoral votes.
“If Romney is putting money in here and competing for it in October,” Mr. Robertson said, “he’s in real big trouble.”
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Presidential Geography: South Carolina
The 2012 presidential election is less 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 have been taking a state by state look at each state throughout the the weeks leading up to Election Day . Next up is South Carolina.
South Carolina:
In 1984, Massachusetts voted for Ronald Reagan. In 1988, California voted for George H. W. Bush. In 1992 and 1996, Kentucky voted for Bill Clinton.
Needless to say, many states have had a substantial change of heart in the past 20 or 30 years.
South Carolina has not. For almost three decades, the Palmetto State has been nothing if not consistent. Relative to the national popular vote, the Republican presidential candidate has carried South Carolina — starting in 1984 — by 10 percentage points, then 16, 14, 15, 16, 15 and 16 in 2008. And all signs point to Mitt Romney winning South Carolina by a double-digit margin this year.
While migrations and immigrations, policy proposals and personalities have come and gone, and shifted the politics of many states, South Carolina has held firm, a majority Republican state with a sizable Democratic minority.
But it is not as if the Palmetto State hasn’t undergone any demographic changes. Rather, those changes have tended to balance out, leaving no net effect on the state’s political leanings, Mr. Tompkins said. Furthermore, South Carolina has few real swing voters. It was the 3rd least elastic state; its partisan voting blocs are remarkably stable.
In presidential elections, the state is consistently about 55 to 60 percent Republican, comprised of social conservatives in the Upstate and traditional suburban conservatives in the Lowcountry, and 40 to 45 percent Democratic, consisting of rural and urban African-Americans and urban whites in the Midlands and Charleston.
“We’re a 55-45 state – dependably so in statewide races.”
From 2000 to 2010, no state’s Hispanic population grew faster than South Carolina’s, more than doubling to 5 percent. That’s not a huge share of the state, but, because Hispanic voters tend to favor Democrats by large margins, one might expect the state to shift at least slightly to the left.
At the same time, however, a Republican-friendly demographic has also been moving into the state. Affluent retirees, overwhelmingly white, have been moving to South Carolina in large numbers, particularly in communities on the coast.
And Hispanics tend to vote at much lower rates than the Republican-leaning retirees, “so what at first glance appears to be an advantage for the Democrats is largely negated,” Mr. Oldendick said.
Upstate South Carolina, around Greenville, is heavily Republican. A large share of voters in Upstate are Evangelical Christians, and the Tea Party is popular there. The region is still one of the nation’s largest textile producers, but the industry is a shadow of its former self. Automobile companies, like BMW, have moved in to fill part of the gap.
The only area of the state dominated by Democrats is the Midlands, where African-Americans are a majority in about a dozen rural counties and the largest population center in the region, Columbia, is home to the main University of South Carolina campus. Moderate, well-educated voters in Richland County, where Columbia is, make it a reliable source of Democratic votes.
The Lowcountry includes Charleston, where the Port Charleston Harbor is a major engine of the state’s economy. The Charleston area also has a strong libertarian streak, Mr. Tompkins said. Farther north, retirees have flocked to beach communities along the Grand Strand, where tourists also provide a steady boost to the economy in destinations like Myrtle Beach.
The Bellwether: Beaufort County
Fast-growing Beaufort County includes Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort, the resort town of Hilton Head and the perfectly preserved architecture of Beaufort itself. Naturally, the military and tourism are two of Beaufort County’s most significant industries.
In the last three elections, Beaufort County has been a slightly Republican-leaning bellwether of South Carolina’s statewide vote, supporting the Republican presidential candidate in each election by one or two percentage points more than the state as a whole.
The Bottom Line
The FiveThirtyEight model currently makes Mr. Romney a 99 percent favorite in South Carolina, projecting a 55 to 44 percent win over President Obama. That isn’t far off from the final vote in 2008, when Sen. John McCain carried the state 54 to 45 percent over Mr. Obama.
Those margins might not seem that wide for such a consistently red state. In 2008, Mr. McCain carried other states by much larger margins.
But it is likely a mistake to misinterpret the relative narrowness of the Republican advantage in South Carolina as a sign of potential competitiveness, both Mr. Oldendick and Mr. Tompkins said.
South Carolina isn’t experiencing the demographic and economic forces that have made Virginia and North Carolina, formerly reliably red states, into presidential battlegrounds, Mr. Tompkins said. And the demographic groups that dominate the state — such as evangelicals and African-Americans — tend to have strong allegiances to one party or the other, leaving few persuadable voters.
“I’m personally doubtful that the Democrats will compete successfully in a presidential contest in the near future,” Mr. Tompkins said.
Or, from a South Carolina Democrat’s perspective, the slightly more pessimistic view:
“I think it is very unlikely that we will see much change in South Carolina voting at the presidential level,” Mr. Oldendick said, adding, “or any other level for that matter.”
The New York Times and Micah Cohen have been taking a state by state look at each state throughout the the weeks leading up to Election Day . Next up is South Carolina.
South Carolina:
In 1984, Massachusetts voted for Ronald Reagan. In 1988, California voted for George H. W. Bush. In 1992 and 1996, Kentucky voted for Bill Clinton.
Needless to say, many states have had a substantial change of heart in the past 20 or 30 years.
South Carolina has not. For almost three decades, the Palmetto State has been nothing if not consistent. Relative to the national popular vote, the Republican presidential candidate has carried South Carolina — starting in 1984 — by 10 percentage points, then 16, 14, 15, 16, 15 and 16 in 2008. And all signs point to Mitt Romney winning South Carolina by a double-digit margin this year.
While migrations and immigrations, policy proposals and personalities have come and gone, and shifted the politics of many states, South Carolina has held firm, a majority Republican state with a sizable Democratic minority.
But it is not as if the Palmetto State hasn’t undergone any demographic changes. Rather, those changes have tended to balance out, leaving no net effect on the state’s political leanings, Mr. Tompkins said. Furthermore, South Carolina has few real swing voters. It was the 3rd least elastic state; its partisan voting blocs are remarkably stable.
In presidential elections, the state is consistently about 55 to 60 percent Republican, comprised of social conservatives in the Upstate and traditional suburban conservatives in the Lowcountry, and 40 to 45 percent Democratic, consisting of rural and urban African-Americans and urban whites in the Midlands and Charleston.
“We’re a 55-45 state – dependably so in statewide races.”
From 2000 to 2010, no state’s Hispanic population grew faster than South Carolina’s, more than doubling to 5 percent. That’s not a huge share of the state, but, because Hispanic voters tend to favor Democrats by large margins, one might expect the state to shift at least slightly to the left.
At the same time, however, a Republican-friendly demographic has also been moving into the state. Affluent retirees, overwhelmingly white, have been moving to South Carolina in large numbers, particularly in communities on the coast.
And Hispanics tend to vote at much lower rates than the Republican-leaning retirees, “so what at first glance appears to be an advantage for the Democrats is largely negated,” Mr. Oldendick said.
Upstate South Carolina, around Greenville, is heavily Republican. A large share of voters in Upstate are Evangelical Christians, and the Tea Party is popular there. The region is still one of the nation’s largest textile producers, but the industry is a shadow of its former self. Automobile companies, like BMW, have moved in to fill part of the gap.
The only area of the state dominated by Democrats is the Midlands, where African-Americans are a majority in about a dozen rural counties and the largest population center in the region, Columbia, is home to the main University of South Carolina campus. Moderate, well-educated voters in Richland County, where Columbia is, make it a reliable source of Democratic votes.
The Lowcountry includes Charleston, where the Port Charleston Harbor is a major engine of the state’s economy. The Charleston area also has a strong libertarian streak, Mr. Tompkins said. Farther north, retirees have flocked to beach communities along the Grand Strand, where tourists also provide a steady boost to the economy in destinations like Myrtle Beach.
The Bellwether: Beaufort County
Fast-growing Beaufort County includes Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort, the resort town of Hilton Head and the perfectly preserved architecture of Beaufort itself. Naturally, the military and tourism are two of Beaufort County’s most significant industries.
In the last three elections, Beaufort County has been a slightly Republican-leaning bellwether of South Carolina’s statewide vote, supporting the Republican presidential candidate in each election by one or two percentage points more than the state as a whole.
The Bottom Line
The FiveThirtyEight model currently makes Mr. Romney a 99 percent favorite in South Carolina, projecting a 55 to 44 percent win over President Obama. That isn’t far off from the final vote in 2008, when Sen. John McCain carried the state 54 to 45 percent over Mr. Obama.
Those margins might not seem that wide for such a consistently red state. In 2008, Mr. McCain carried other states by much larger margins.
But it is likely a mistake to misinterpret the relative narrowness of the Republican advantage in South Carolina as a sign of potential competitiveness, both Mr. Oldendick and Mr. Tompkins said.
South Carolina isn’t experiencing the demographic and economic forces that have made Virginia and North Carolina, formerly reliably red states, into presidential battlegrounds, Mr. Tompkins said. And the demographic groups that dominate the state — such as evangelicals and African-Americans — tend to have strong allegiances to one party or the other, leaving few persuadable voters.
“I’m personally doubtful that the Democrats will compete successfully in a presidential contest in the near future,” Mr. Tompkins said.
Or, from a South Carolina Democrat’s perspective, the slightly more pessimistic view:
“I think it is very unlikely that we will see much change in South Carolina voting at the presidential level,” Mr. Oldendick said, adding, “or any other level for that matter.”
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Presidential Geography: Oregon
The 2012 presidential election is about 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 have been taking a state by state look at each state throughout the the weeks leading up to Election Day . Next up is Oregon.
Oregon:
Like the last state profiled in this series, Wisconsin, Oregon is a difficult state to pin down politically. The last Republican to carry the state in a presidential election was Ronald Reagan in 1984. President Obama won the state comfortably in 2008, and Mitt Romney doesn’t seem to be contesting Oregon this year.
But Mr. Obama’s 16-percentage-point margin of victory in Oregon in 2008 was very much out of character for the state. It was the largest win there by a presidential candidate in more than four decades. In 2004, Senator John Kerry won Oregon by four percentage points. In 2000, Al Gore eked out a win there by less than 7,000 votes.
Oregon’s electoral trajectory is actually very similar to the arc Wisconsin has followed. The two states both sit right on the cusp of competitive and safely Democratic states.
Oregon, like Wisconsin, is an ideologically polarized state. The Cascade Mountains are a convenient dividing line, politically and geographically. The Cascades, which block moisture flowing inland from the Pacific Ocean, demarcate the wet, green and left-leaning population centers in the west and the dry, brown, lightly populated and conservative eastern half of Oregon.
Most Oregonians live in the Willamette Valley, beginning in Portland (Multnomah County), the paramount source of Democratic votes in the state. But Portland was not always so liberal. Through the middle 20th century, Portland was a blue-collar town, and its transition from an industrial, marginally Democratic town to the greenest city in the nation, with bike paths connecting microbreweries and galleries, accounts for a large portion of Oregon’s shift to the left.
“Even since I’ve been here in the ’80s,” Mr. Mapes said, “it’s stunning how much more Democratic the city has become.” He added, “Now, Republicans are very excited if they can get over 25 percent of the vote in Multnomah County.”
Traveling south from Portland, the university towns of Corvallis and Eugene are the other two Democratic strongholds in the state. Republicans are more competitive in the farming areas between the main cities in the Willamette Valley. In Mr. Obama’s blowout win in 2008, he carried Marion County, where the state capital Salem is, by just two percentage points.
East of the Cascade Mountains is Republican territory, and Mr. Romney will win these counties by large margins. Many residents in eastern Oregon make their living off the land, whether in timber, agriculture or mining. Oregon is still a top lumber producer, but the industry was hurt badly in the 1990s after the federal government passed logging limits to protect the spotted owl’s habitat.
That decision — and questions about environmental protection in general — contributed to the polarization of Oregon’s politics, fueling a rural versus urban mentality. While moderates from both sides once prevailed in Oregon, the state is now deeply divided. Eastern Oregon is ruby red and firmly in favor of development. The state’s city dwellers, however, tend to prioritize a clean environment.
The division has largely worked in favor of the Democratic Party. Although Democrats now have great difficulty winning in rural Oregon, Republicans have trouble winning statewide. This is because, on environmental issues, Oregon’s suburbs have mostly sided with its cities, Mr. Lunch said, and most Oregonians live in cities and suburbs.
Republican candidates in Oregon must “appeal to their rural base, which wants an all-out war on these environmental restrictions, and suburban swing voters, who are more concerned about protecting the environment,” Mr. Mapes said.
The Bellwether: Washington County and Clackamas County
With Oregon’s liberal cities in the Willamette Valley on the left, and eastern and southern Oregon on the right, the political battle in Oregon tends to focus on Portland’s suburbs, Mr. Lunch said. Specifically, campaigns focus on the swing voters who live in two counties that neighbor Portland: Clackamas County, to the southeast, and Washington County, to the west. In 2008, 13 percent of Oregon voters cast their ballot in Washington County, and 10 percent in Clackamas County.
Washington County, which includes a bevy of high-tech jobs in the Silicon Forest, tends to be a bit more Democratic than Oregon as a whole. And Clackamas County, which is more blue-collar and includes more exurban and rural territory than Washington County, tends to vote a bit more Republican than Oregon overall. So, when taken together, the two counties present a nearly perfect barometer of Oregon’s final statewide vote, matching the two-party vote shares statewide almost exactly in the last three elections.
The Bottom Line
Oregon, overall, seems to be just to the ideological left of where most political observers place the border between competitive and safely Democratic states. Looking back to the margin of victory chart above, Oregon has consistently been just a little more Democratic-leaning than Wisconsin. The difference has been marginal, but Wisconsin is included as a battleground state much more often than Oregon.
The FiveThirtyEight model, which draws more granular distinctions, currently makes Mr. Obama a 92 percent favorite in Oregon, a few percentage points better than his odds in Wisconsin, 88 percent, before Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin was added to the Romney ticket.
In a truly competitive presidential election, Oregon is unlikely to act as atipping-point state; in over 99 percent of the model’s simulations, Oregon’s seven electoral votes prove either a given for a winning Mr. Obama or unneeded for a victorious Mr. Romney. In other words, in most competitive elections, Oregon will stay in the Democratic column, although sometimes just barely.
But in the context of a Republican wave election, or conditions nearly that favorable, a Republican could carry the state.
“There’s still a sense that under the right circumstances Republicans could be competitive statewide,” Mr. Lunch said, “but they’ve got to have everything go right for them.”
The New York Times and Micah Cohen have been taking a state by state look at each state throughout the the weeks leading up to Election Day . Next up is Oregon.
Oregon:
Like the last state profiled in this series, Wisconsin, Oregon is a difficult state to pin down politically. The last Republican to carry the state in a presidential election was Ronald Reagan in 1984. President Obama won the state comfortably in 2008, and Mitt Romney doesn’t seem to be contesting Oregon this year.
But Mr. Obama’s 16-percentage-point margin of victory in Oregon in 2008 was very much out of character for the state. It was the largest win there by a presidential candidate in more than four decades. In 2004, Senator John Kerry won Oregon by four percentage points. In 2000, Al Gore eked out a win there by less than 7,000 votes.
Oregon’s electoral trajectory is actually very similar to the arc Wisconsin has followed. The two states both sit right on the cusp of competitive and safely Democratic states.
Oregon, like Wisconsin, is an ideologically polarized state. The Cascade Mountains are a convenient dividing line, politically and geographically. The Cascades, which block moisture flowing inland from the Pacific Ocean, demarcate the wet, green and left-leaning population centers in the west and the dry, brown, lightly populated and conservative eastern half of Oregon.
Most Oregonians live in the Willamette Valley, beginning in Portland (Multnomah County), the paramount source of Democratic votes in the state. But Portland was not always so liberal. Through the middle 20th century, Portland was a blue-collar town, and its transition from an industrial, marginally Democratic town to the greenest city in the nation, with bike paths connecting microbreweries and galleries, accounts for a large portion of Oregon’s shift to the left.
“Even since I’ve been here in the ’80s,” Mr. Mapes said, “it’s stunning how much more Democratic the city has become.” He added, “Now, Republicans are very excited if they can get over 25 percent of the vote in Multnomah County.”
Traveling south from Portland, the university towns of Corvallis and Eugene are the other two Democratic strongholds in the state. Republicans are more competitive in the farming areas between the main cities in the Willamette Valley. In Mr. Obama’s blowout win in 2008, he carried Marion County, where the state capital Salem is, by just two percentage points.
East of the Cascade Mountains is Republican territory, and Mr. Romney will win these counties by large margins. Many residents in eastern Oregon make their living off the land, whether in timber, agriculture or mining. Oregon is still a top lumber producer, but the industry was hurt badly in the 1990s after the federal government passed logging limits to protect the spotted owl’s habitat.
That decision — and questions about environmental protection in general — contributed to the polarization of Oregon’s politics, fueling a rural versus urban mentality. While moderates from both sides once prevailed in Oregon, the state is now deeply divided. Eastern Oregon is ruby red and firmly in favor of development. The state’s city dwellers, however, tend to prioritize a clean environment.
The division has largely worked in favor of the Democratic Party. Although Democrats now have great difficulty winning in rural Oregon, Republicans have trouble winning statewide. This is because, on environmental issues, Oregon’s suburbs have mostly sided with its cities, Mr. Lunch said, and most Oregonians live in cities and suburbs.
Republican candidates in Oregon must “appeal to their rural base, which wants an all-out war on these environmental restrictions, and suburban swing voters, who are more concerned about protecting the environment,” Mr. Mapes said.
The Bellwether: Washington County and Clackamas County
With Oregon’s liberal cities in the Willamette Valley on the left, and eastern and southern Oregon on the right, the political battle in Oregon tends to focus on Portland’s suburbs, Mr. Lunch said. Specifically, campaigns focus on the swing voters who live in two counties that neighbor Portland: Clackamas County, to the southeast, and Washington County, to the west. In 2008, 13 percent of Oregon voters cast their ballot in Washington County, and 10 percent in Clackamas County.
Washington County, which includes a bevy of high-tech jobs in the Silicon Forest, tends to be a bit more Democratic than Oregon as a whole. And Clackamas County, which is more blue-collar and includes more exurban and rural territory than Washington County, tends to vote a bit more Republican than Oregon overall. So, when taken together, the two counties present a nearly perfect barometer of Oregon’s final statewide vote, matching the two-party vote shares statewide almost exactly in the last three elections.
The Bottom Line
Oregon, overall, seems to be just to the ideological left of where most political observers place the border between competitive and safely Democratic states. Looking back to the margin of victory chart above, Oregon has consistently been just a little more Democratic-leaning than Wisconsin. The difference has been marginal, but Wisconsin is included as a battleground state much more often than Oregon.
The FiveThirtyEight model, which draws more granular distinctions, currently makes Mr. Obama a 92 percent favorite in Oregon, a few percentage points better than his odds in Wisconsin, 88 percent, before Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin was added to the Romney ticket.
In a truly competitive presidential election, Oregon is unlikely to act as atipping-point state; in over 99 percent of the model’s simulations, Oregon’s seven electoral votes prove either a given for a winning Mr. Obama or unneeded for a victorious Mr. Romney. In other words, in most competitive elections, Oregon will stay in the Democratic column, although sometimes just barely.
But in the context of a Republican wave election, or conditions nearly that favorable, a Republican could carry the state.
“There’s still a sense that under the right circumstances Republicans could be competitive statewide,” Mr. Lunch said, “but they’ve got to have everything go right for them.”
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Presidential Geography: Wisconsin
The 2012 presidential election is about 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 have been taking a state by state look at each state throughout the the weeks leading up to Election Day . Next up is Wisconsin.
Wisconsin:
Mitt Romney’s decision to name Representative Paul D. Ryan as his vice-presidential choice not only throws Mr. Ryan into the campaign grinder, but also adds his home state, Wisconsin, into the mix.
Wisconsin has had something of a “to be, or not to be” swing-state status during this year’s race. The state has been treated as both a genuine tossup and a lock for President Obama. Before Mr. Ryan was named to the ticket, the FiveThirtyEight model saw the state closer to the latter: Mr. Romney had just a 12 percent chance of carrying the Badger State. But the Ryan pick boosted that to 20 percent.
Those improved odds are based on a two percentage point bonus that the model accounts for in the home state of each vice-presidential candidate — the average bump that a running mate has added since 1920, according to a previous FiveThirtyEight analysis.
But the effect a vice-presidential candidate has had on his or her home state has varied widely. Is there any inherent aspect to Wisconsin’s political geography that might provide clues as to whether Mr. Ryan will have a larger, or smaller, impact on the Nov. 6 vote in Wisconsin?
Wisconsin is a deeply polarized state (see, Walker, Scott). But that is fitting — the state helped give rise to both the Republican Party in 1854 and the progressive movement, through former Wisconsin Gov. Robert La Follette Sr., who was born one year later in 1855. A century or so ago, when the progressive movement and the Republican Party were close cousins, Wisconsin was a reliably red state. (It voted for the Democrat in the presidential race just twice between 1856 and 1928.) Now that these are viewed as incompatible philosophies, their sharp edges manifest themselves in different ways throughout the state.
The suburban communities to the immediate west of Milwaukee are the Republican power centers in Wisconsin. Waukesha County, in particular, has some of the most heavily Republican suburbs in the nation.
Mr. Ryan represents the First District, to the south of Milwaukee. Previously, the First District included just a small part of those suburbs, but a larger chunk of that Republican territory was added to Mr. Ryan’s district in the most recent round of redistricting, Mr. Franklin said.
Nevertheless, Mr. Ryan has not represented an overwhelmingly conservative district. It has leaned slightly to the right, but Mr. Obama was able to carry the First District in 2008, albeit, with just 51 percent of the vote. Winning a district doesn’t earn you any points if you lose the state, but Mr. Ryan’s ability to win easily in a not-so-easy area suggests that he has some skill in winning over a skeptical audience — at least in Wisconsin.
Both Gov. Scott Walker and Mr. Obama have net positive approval ratings in Wisconsin. That suggests that there is a group of true independent voters in the state, who can be influenced to vote for either Mr. Romney or Mr. Obama, Mr. Franklin said.
That’s exactly where Mr. Ryan might be able to help Mr. Romney in Wisconsin, Mr. Franklin said. While nationally, the opinion of independent voters who have heard of Mr. Ryan is about evenly split, his ratings arerespectable among Wisconsin independents.
It is unlikely, however, that Mr. Ryan’s Wisconsin roots will be enough to win over many Democrats in America’s Dairyland, Mr. Franklin said.
The Democratic anchors in Wisconsin are the cities of Milwaukee and Madison. As both the state capital and home to the main branch of the state’s university system, Madison is especially Democratic. The farming counties in western Wisconsin, along the Mississippi River, also tend to vote Democratic, and voted for Mr. Obama in 2008 — perhaps a testament to their progressive heritage, despite demographics (white, rural and working class) that would be problematic for Democrats in most other contexts.
The two regions of Wisconsin that are harder to predict are the Fox River Valley, north of Milwaukee, and the sparsely populated farm counties in the northwest.
Northern Wisconsin and the Fox River Valley, near Green Bay, are also mostly white and working class. Employment is centered around agriculture and paper mills. Mr. Obama did surprisingly well in both regions in 2008. But often, their traditional Republicanism prevails: George W. Bush won almost every county in these regions in both 2000 and 2004.
Mr. Obama’s unexpected strength in the Fox River Valley and northern Wisconsin in 2008 helps to explain how he easily carried the state after razor-thin margins in the past two presidential cycles. The Obama campaign managed to flip a large swath of the state.
The Bellwether: Columbia County
Columbia County may provide some early clues as to how Wisconsin might vote on Nov. 6. It sits just north of the liberal Dane County, home to Madison, but is also not too far removed geographically from the heavily Republican Milwaukee suburbs, or the red-tinged Fox River Valley.
The vote in Columbia County has matched the statewide vote within one or two percentage points in each of the past three presidential elections. It has also mirrored the statewide vote in off-year election cycles.
The Bottom Line
A Public Policy Polling survey from early June found Mr. Obama leading Mr. Romney by six percentage points in Wisconsin. But the poll also found that an Obama-Biden ticket led a Romney-Ryan pairing by just one percentage point, 47 to 46 percent.
But that is just one data point. Outside of his own district, Mr. Ryan is still fairly unknown, even in Wisconsin. In a JulyMarquette University poll, 35 percent of Wisconsin voters said they did not know enough about him to render a favorable or unfavorable verdict. That percentage is just slightly lower than the share of people who have never heard of Mr. Ryan nationally.
As a member of the House rather than a statewide officeholder, Mr. Ryan’s relative obscurity makes predicting his effect on the election more difficult. How an independent voter in Green Bay responds to Mr. Ryan, including his controversial proposal to remake the federal budget, may not be all that different from a how an undecided voter responds in Manchester, N.H. or Lakeland, Fla. It’s possible that Mr. Ryan could provide an average home-state bounce of about two points to Mr. Romney, but it would likely be highly concentrated in his home district, with few obvious gains elsewhere.
Whether Mr. Obama can replicate, or even approximate, his 2008 performance in northern Wisconsin and the Fox River Valley will go a long way toward determining whether he carries Wisconsin again. Republicans may be hoping that Mr. Obama’s 2008 support was miles wide, but inches deep.
Wisconsin’s economic recovery has also been more sluggish than other states in the Midwest. With a sputtering economy hobbling Mr. Obama’s re-election effort, and now with Mr. Ryan on the ticket, both northern Wisconsin and the Green Bay region could find reasons to revert to their Republican ways. That would make Wisconsin a much closer contest.
The New York Times and Micah Cohen have been taking a state by state look at each state throughout the the weeks leading up to Election Day . Next up is Wisconsin.
Wisconsin:
Mitt Romney’s decision to name Representative Paul D. Ryan as his vice-presidential choice not only throws Mr. Ryan into the campaign grinder, but also adds his home state, Wisconsin, into the mix.
Wisconsin has had something of a “to be, or not to be” swing-state status during this year’s race. The state has been treated as both a genuine tossup and a lock for President Obama. Before Mr. Ryan was named to the ticket, the FiveThirtyEight model saw the state closer to the latter: Mr. Romney had just a 12 percent chance of carrying the Badger State. But the Ryan pick boosted that to 20 percent.
Those improved odds are based on a two percentage point bonus that the model accounts for in the home state of each vice-presidential candidate — the average bump that a running mate has added since 1920, according to a previous FiveThirtyEight analysis.
But the effect a vice-presidential candidate has had on his or her home state has varied widely. Is there any inherent aspect to Wisconsin’s political geography that might provide clues as to whether Mr. Ryan will have a larger, or smaller, impact on the Nov. 6 vote in Wisconsin?
Wisconsin is a deeply polarized state (see, Walker, Scott). But that is fitting — the state helped give rise to both the Republican Party in 1854 and the progressive movement, through former Wisconsin Gov. Robert La Follette Sr., who was born one year later in 1855. A century or so ago, when the progressive movement and the Republican Party were close cousins, Wisconsin was a reliably red state. (It voted for the Democrat in the presidential race just twice between 1856 and 1928.) Now that these are viewed as incompatible philosophies, their sharp edges manifest themselves in different ways throughout the state.
The suburban communities to the immediate west of Milwaukee are the Republican power centers in Wisconsin. Waukesha County, in particular, has some of the most heavily Republican suburbs in the nation.
Mr. Ryan represents the First District, to the south of Milwaukee. Previously, the First District included just a small part of those suburbs, but a larger chunk of that Republican territory was added to Mr. Ryan’s district in the most recent round of redistricting, Mr. Franklin said.
Nevertheless, Mr. Ryan has not represented an overwhelmingly conservative district. It has leaned slightly to the right, but Mr. Obama was able to carry the First District in 2008, albeit, with just 51 percent of the vote. Winning a district doesn’t earn you any points if you lose the state, but Mr. Ryan’s ability to win easily in a not-so-easy area suggests that he has some skill in winning over a skeptical audience — at least in Wisconsin.
Both Gov. Scott Walker and Mr. Obama have net positive approval ratings in Wisconsin. That suggests that there is a group of true independent voters in the state, who can be influenced to vote for either Mr. Romney or Mr. Obama, Mr. Franklin said.
That’s exactly where Mr. Ryan might be able to help Mr. Romney in Wisconsin, Mr. Franklin said. While nationally, the opinion of independent voters who have heard of Mr. Ryan is about evenly split, his ratings arerespectable among Wisconsin independents.
It is unlikely, however, that Mr. Ryan’s Wisconsin roots will be enough to win over many Democrats in America’s Dairyland, Mr. Franklin said.
The Democratic anchors in Wisconsin are the cities of Milwaukee and Madison. As both the state capital and home to the main branch of the state’s university system, Madison is especially Democratic. The farming counties in western Wisconsin, along the Mississippi River, also tend to vote Democratic, and voted for Mr. Obama in 2008 — perhaps a testament to their progressive heritage, despite demographics (white, rural and working class) that would be problematic for Democrats in most other contexts.
The two regions of Wisconsin that are harder to predict are the Fox River Valley, north of Milwaukee, and the sparsely populated farm counties in the northwest.
Northern Wisconsin and the Fox River Valley, near Green Bay, are also mostly white and working class. Employment is centered around agriculture and paper mills. Mr. Obama did surprisingly well in both regions in 2008. But often, their traditional Republicanism prevails: George W. Bush won almost every county in these regions in both 2000 and 2004.
Mr. Obama’s unexpected strength in the Fox River Valley and northern Wisconsin in 2008 helps to explain how he easily carried the state after razor-thin margins in the past two presidential cycles. The Obama campaign managed to flip a large swath of the state.
The Bellwether: Columbia County
Columbia County may provide some early clues as to how Wisconsin might vote on Nov. 6. It sits just north of the liberal Dane County, home to Madison, but is also not too far removed geographically from the heavily Republican Milwaukee suburbs, or the red-tinged Fox River Valley.
The vote in Columbia County has matched the statewide vote within one or two percentage points in each of the past three presidential elections. It has also mirrored the statewide vote in off-year election cycles.
The Bottom Line
A Public Policy Polling survey from early June found Mr. Obama leading Mr. Romney by six percentage points in Wisconsin. But the poll also found that an Obama-Biden ticket led a Romney-Ryan pairing by just one percentage point, 47 to 46 percent.
But that is just one data point. Outside of his own district, Mr. Ryan is still fairly unknown, even in Wisconsin. In a JulyMarquette University poll, 35 percent of Wisconsin voters said they did not know enough about him to render a favorable or unfavorable verdict. That percentage is just slightly lower than the share of people who have never heard of Mr. Ryan nationally.
As a member of the House rather than a statewide officeholder, Mr. Ryan’s relative obscurity makes predicting his effect on the election more difficult. How an independent voter in Green Bay responds to Mr. Ryan, including his controversial proposal to remake the federal budget, may not be all that different from a how an undecided voter responds in Manchester, N.H. or Lakeland, Fla. It’s possible that Mr. Ryan could provide an average home-state bounce of about two points to Mr. Romney, but it would likely be highly concentrated in his home district, with few obvious gains elsewhere.
Whether Mr. Obama can replicate, or even approximate, his 2008 performance in northern Wisconsin and the Fox River Valley will go a long way toward determining whether he carries Wisconsin again. Republicans may be hoping that Mr. Obama’s 2008 support was miles wide, but inches deep.
Wisconsin’s economic recovery has also been more sluggish than other states in the Midwest. With a sputtering economy hobbling Mr. Obama’s re-election effort, and now with Mr. Ryan on the ticket, both northern Wisconsin and the Green Bay region could find reasons to revert to their Republican ways. That would make Wisconsin a much closer contest.
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Two potential VP choices: Rob Portman and Paul Ryan
The Republican National Convention is inching closer and presumptive GOP presidential Mitt Romney will be naming his pick very soon. With both of those occasions around the corner, there have been multiple names mentioned from former GOP presidential nominees to governors to members of Congress. There have been pros and cons weighed on each and what they would bring. Whether it is they are from a swing state, they would boost minority voters support, or they would provide balance to what Romney presents. There are two that likely stand out as late minute lead contenders. Those are U.S. Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) and Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI1). Below will cases for each man and what they would bring to a ticket with Romney.
Rob Portman:
* The anti-Palin: It’s virtually impossible to overestimate how much John McCain’s pick of Sarah Palinas his vice president in 2008 looms over Romney’s selection process. Everyone but McCain now concedes that Palin, who had spent two years as the governor of Alaska before she was plucked from obscurity, was ill-prepared for the job and, ultimately, undermined McCain’s “experience matters” argument against then Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. The Romney team has let almost nothing about the candidate’s criteria for a ticketmate slip but one thing they have made clear is that competence and a readiness to do the job are by far the most important things he wants in a running mate. Portman oozes competence. He’s spent time in both the executive and legislative branches and everywhere he’s served he’s won kudos for his abilities. It’s hard to imagine that even his staunchest Democratic opponents would be able to argue that Portman wouldn’t be up to the task of being vice president or even president. Seen through the anti-Palin lens, the fact that Portman isn’t terribly sexy — politically speaking — also probably works in his favor. No one would argue that Romney picked Portman to spice things up. If Palin was a Hail Mary pass by McCain, Portman is a three-yard run up the middle. A Portman pick could be sold as an example of Romney’s seriousness and focus not just on winning the presidency but also governing the country.
* Double threat: Most of the candidates still being talked about as Romney’s vice presidential pick have a similar resume to the former Massachusetts governor. That is, they are/were governors with very limited foreign policy experience. (And, no, we don’t count directing your state’s National Guard.) That’s not the case with Portman who boasts real credentials domestically (head of the Office of Management and Budget, House Member, Senator) and internationally as the U.S. Trade Representative during the Bush Administration. While the trade representative isn’t on the same level as, say the Secretary of State, Portman allies note that no one else on the short list can say they have sat at the table with other heads of state and negotiated real trade initiatives. For a candidate like Romney, whose foreign trip exposed just how shaky he can be on international matters, having someone like Portman as a steadying influence could be quite beneficial. (Worth noting: Obama picking Joe Biden was driven, at least in part, by this same line of thinking — that Biden knew global politics and policy and could be a major help to the president on those matters.)
* Ohio, Ohio, Ohio: Without a victory in Ohio on November 6, the electoral math gets very iffy for Romney. And, while the recent history of VP nominees helping to deliver a state or a region is decidedly dicey, there is an argument to be made that Portman actually can make a difference in the Buckeye State. Portman spent 12 years representing the Cincinnati-area in the House before running statewide in 2010. His Senate campaign, which we covered closely on the Fix, was brilliantly run and while he would have almost certainly won even if it wasn’t — the year favored Republicans and Portman’s Democratic opponent was, um, not good — his 18-point margin was eye-opening in such a closely divided state. He proved his mettle (again) during the Ohio presidential primary earlier this year as Romney battled to beat back a surprisingly serious challenge from former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum. Portman was everywhere on the stump during the run-up to that vote, which Romney won by one percent. And, Portman’s statewide organization drew praise for delivering the state to Romney — for good reason. Romney took his highest share of the vote in Hamilton County in Southwest Ohio — which Portman represented in the House — and netted more than 15,000 votes there, which was bigger than his overall margin statewide. With 2012 shaping up more and more like 2004, a few thousand votes here and there in Ohio could make a big difference. (Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry lost Ohio by 118,00 votes in 2004 and, with it, the presidency.) There’s no one else being mentioned as VP who can make a better case than Portman that they can deliver real votes in a swing state.
* Low expectations: The rap on Portman is that he’s a boring guy who no one knows. That fact virtually ensures that if Portman is the pick the narrative that will emerge will be along the lines of “he’s more interesting that you might think!”. It’s just how these things tend to work. Already Portman’s impersonation of a chicken and his near-death experience while kayaking are starting to build out the “this guy is interesting” storyline. While Portman is never going to be the national rock star that a Marco Rubio or Chris Christie might be as VP, the expectations for him to be even vaguely interesting are so incredibly low that he will almost certainly exceed them. Combine his deep resume with a sympathetic more-interesting-than-you-think narrative and Portman may well be the perfect Romney pick.
Paul Ryan:
* The ideas guy: Republicans have struggled to beat back the growing perception that they lack new ideas and, as a result, have premised their whole existence on simply opposing whatever President Obama proposes. Picking Ryan would immediately change that perception — or at least start to erode it. Like his proposals or not, it’s clear that in his budget blueprints, Ryan has proposed a conservative full world-view that makes tough choices — re-making Medicare, for one — that offers voters a genuine policy alternative to what President Obama has done over the past four years. For those in the party — led by Wisconsin governor Scott Walker — who have been urging Romney to lay out a positive policy vision for the country, picking Ryan would be regarded as a master stroke.
* A little bit country, a little bit rock and roll: In the most simple of terms, you can break down Romney’s choices for VP into two categories. There are the safe but less-than-scintillating picks (Portman, Pawlenty) and there are the rock-star-but-riskier picks (Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie). Ryan is the closest thing to a hybrid of those two categories. (You can make an argument here for Jindal but we tend to think Ryan trumps him on the “star” front.) Ryan is someone who is well known and well liked by the party establishment, having served in Congress since 1998 and currently chairing the House Budget Committee. At the same time, Ryan’s budget proposals over the last two years have turned him into a hero among national conservatives (and a villain among liberals, but more on that in the case against Ryan) and he is widely regarded as one of the major figures in the GOP. It’s easy to imagine that if Ryan is the pick he could draw big crowds — maybe not Sarah Palin-level crowds but close — in places like Iowa and New Hampshire as people scramble to see the new face of the Republican party. Picking Ryan would combine the credibility of a serious and tested politician with the excitement that only a genuine political star can generate — and that Romney, not exactly Mr. Personality, may need to win.
* Son of the Midwest: If Romney is going to win the presidency, he is going to need to do it in the upper Midwest/Rust Belt states of Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio and, maybe, Pennsylvania and Michigan. While we tend to look askance at the alleged power of a geographic pick — the last VP pick to “deliver” a region of the country was Lyndon Johnson in 1960— nominating Ryan would allow Romney to double-down on the idea that the Republican ticket better understands the lives of average Americans in the Midwest. (Romney, remember, was born and raised in Michigan.) And, more narrowly, Ryan’s popularity in his congressional district in a swing area of southeastern Wisconsin shouldn’t be overlooked. Remember that George W. Bush lost Wisconsin by just 11,000 votes (out of more than 1.9 million cast) in 2004, meaning that even a slight improvement in, say, Ryan’s district might have put him over the top. With the November election expected to be very close in Wisconsin, you can make the case that a big margin for Romney in Ryan’s district could make the difference.
* An Obama irritant (with a smile): One of the key characteristics for a vice presidential pick is a willingness to go on the attack against the other party’s presidential nominee and, in an ideal world, finding ways to get under his skin. Ryan has proven an ability to do just that over the past 18 months or so as he and Obama have clashed over their competing budgets and what they would (or wouldn’t) do. Who could forget their contentious closed door meeting in which Ryan faced down Obama over how the president was describing the GOP budget proposal? Or Obama attacking Ryan’s plan as “nothing but thinly-veiled Social Darwinism”? It’s clear from their history that Ryan has unique ability to agitate Obama rivaled perhaps only by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (Va.). And, as importantly, Ryan has, to date, been able to keep a smile plastered on his face even when hammering Obama. People like politicians with a sunny demeanor — even when they are on the attack — and Ryan definitely qualifies.
Will it be Portman or Ryan or someone else named to run alongside Romney? While there are no guarantees in vice presidential nominee selections and predicting whom they will be, Portman and Ryan are likely safer bets than most of the field and one could soon be revealed as the other half of the GOP presidential ticket.
Rob Portman:
* The anti-Palin: It’s virtually impossible to overestimate how much John McCain’s pick of Sarah Palinas his vice president in 2008 looms over Romney’s selection process. Everyone but McCain now concedes that Palin, who had spent two years as the governor of Alaska before she was plucked from obscurity, was ill-prepared for the job and, ultimately, undermined McCain’s “experience matters” argument against then Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. The Romney team has let almost nothing about the candidate’s criteria for a ticketmate slip but one thing they have made clear is that competence and a readiness to do the job are by far the most important things he wants in a running mate. Portman oozes competence. He’s spent time in both the executive and legislative branches and everywhere he’s served he’s won kudos for his abilities. It’s hard to imagine that even his staunchest Democratic opponents would be able to argue that Portman wouldn’t be up to the task of being vice president or even president. Seen through the anti-Palin lens, the fact that Portman isn’t terribly sexy — politically speaking — also probably works in his favor. No one would argue that Romney picked Portman to spice things up. If Palin was a Hail Mary pass by McCain, Portman is a three-yard run up the middle. A Portman pick could be sold as an example of Romney’s seriousness and focus not just on winning the presidency but also governing the country.
* Double threat: Most of the candidates still being talked about as Romney’s vice presidential pick have a similar resume to the former Massachusetts governor. That is, they are/were governors with very limited foreign policy experience. (And, no, we don’t count directing your state’s National Guard.) That’s not the case with Portman who boasts real credentials domestically (head of the Office of Management and Budget, House Member, Senator) and internationally as the U.S. Trade Representative during the Bush Administration. While the trade representative isn’t on the same level as, say the Secretary of State, Portman allies note that no one else on the short list can say they have sat at the table with other heads of state and negotiated real trade initiatives. For a candidate like Romney, whose foreign trip exposed just how shaky he can be on international matters, having someone like Portman as a steadying influence could be quite beneficial. (Worth noting: Obama picking Joe Biden was driven, at least in part, by this same line of thinking — that Biden knew global politics and policy and could be a major help to the president on those matters.)
* Ohio, Ohio, Ohio: Without a victory in Ohio on November 6, the electoral math gets very iffy for Romney. And, while the recent history of VP nominees helping to deliver a state or a region is decidedly dicey, there is an argument to be made that Portman actually can make a difference in the Buckeye State. Portman spent 12 years representing the Cincinnati-area in the House before running statewide in 2010. His Senate campaign, which we covered closely on the Fix, was brilliantly run and while he would have almost certainly won even if it wasn’t — the year favored Republicans and Portman’s Democratic opponent was, um, not good — his 18-point margin was eye-opening in such a closely divided state. He proved his mettle (again) during the Ohio presidential primary earlier this year as Romney battled to beat back a surprisingly serious challenge from former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum. Portman was everywhere on the stump during the run-up to that vote, which Romney won by one percent. And, Portman’s statewide organization drew praise for delivering the state to Romney — for good reason. Romney took his highest share of the vote in Hamilton County in Southwest Ohio — which Portman represented in the House — and netted more than 15,000 votes there, which was bigger than his overall margin statewide. With 2012 shaping up more and more like 2004, a few thousand votes here and there in Ohio could make a big difference. (Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry lost Ohio by 118,00 votes in 2004 and, with it, the presidency.) There’s no one else being mentioned as VP who can make a better case than Portman that they can deliver real votes in a swing state.
* Low expectations: The rap on Portman is that he’s a boring guy who no one knows. That fact virtually ensures that if Portman is the pick the narrative that will emerge will be along the lines of “he’s more interesting that you might think!”. It’s just how these things tend to work. Already Portman’s impersonation of a chicken and his near-death experience while kayaking are starting to build out the “this guy is interesting” storyline. While Portman is never going to be the national rock star that a Marco Rubio or Chris Christie might be as VP, the expectations for him to be even vaguely interesting are so incredibly low that he will almost certainly exceed them. Combine his deep resume with a sympathetic more-interesting-than-you-think narrative and Portman may well be the perfect Romney pick.
Paul Ryan:
* The ideas guy: Republicans have struggled to beat back the growing perception that they lack new ideas and, as a result, have premised their whole existence on simply opposing whatever President Obama proposes. Picking Ryan would immediately change that perception — or at least start to erode it. Like his proposals or not, it’s clear that in his budget blueprints, Ryan has proposed a conservative full world-view that makes tough choices — re-making Medicare, for one — that offers voters a genuine policy alternative to what President Obama has done over the past four years. For those in the party — led by Wisconsin governor Scott Walker — who have been urging Romney to lay out a positive policy vision for the country, picking Ryan would be regarded as a master stroke.
* A little bit country, a little bit rock and roll: In the most simple of terms, you can break down Romney’s choices for VP into two categories. There are the safe but less-than-scintillating picks (Portman, Pawlenty) and there are the rock-star-but-riskier picks (Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie). Ryan is the closest thing to a hybrid of those two categories. (You can make an argument here for Jindal but we tend to think Ryan trumps him on the “star” front.) Ryan is someone who is well known and well liked by the party establishment, having served in Congress since 1998 and currently chairing the House Budget Committee. At the same time, Ryan’s budget proposals over the last two years have turned him into a hero among national conservatives (and a villain among liberals, but more on that in the case against Ryan) and he is widely regarded as one of the major figures in the GOP. It’s easy to imagine that if Ryan is the pick he could draw big crowds — maybe not Sarah Palin-level crowds but close — in places like Iowa and New Hampshire as people scramble to see the new face of the Republican party. Picking Ryan would combine the credibility of a serious and tested politician with the excitement that only a genuine political star can generate — and that Romney, not exactly Mr. Personality, may need to win.
* Son of the Midwest: If Romney is going to win the presidency, he is going to need to do it in the upper Midwest/Rust Belt states of Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio and, maybe, Pennsylvania and Michigan. While we tend to look askance at the alleged power of a geographic pick — the last VP pick to “deliver” a region of the country was Lyndon Johnson in 1960— nominating Ryan would allow Romney to double-down on the idea that the Republican ticket better understands the lives of average Americans in the Midwest. (Romney, remember, was born and raised in Michigan.) And, more narrowly, Ryan’s popularity in his congressional district in a swing area of southeastern Wisconsin shouldn’t be overlooked. Remember that George W. Bush lost Wisconsin by just 11,000 votes (out of more than 1.9 million cast) in 2004, meaning that even a slight improvement in, say, Ryan’s district might have put him over the top. With the November election expected to be very close in Wisconsin, you can make the case that a big margin for Romney in Ryan’s district could make the difference.
* An Obama irritant (with a smile): One of the key characteristics for a vice presidential pick is a willingness to go on the attack against the other party’s presidential nominee and, in an ideal world, finding ways to get under his skin. Ryan has proven an ability to do just that over the past 18 months or so as he and Obama have clashed over their competing budgets and what they would (or wouldn’t) do. Who could forget their contentious closed door meeting in which Ryan faced down Obama over how the president was describing the GOP budget proposal? Or Obama attacking Ryan’s plan as “nothing but thinly-veiled Social Darwinism”? It’s clear from their history that Ryan has unique ability to agitate Obama rivaled perhaps only by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (Va.). And, as importantly, Ryan has, to date, been able to keep a smile plastered on his face even when hammering Obama. People like politicians with a sunny demeanor — even when they are on the attack — and Ryan definitely qualifies.
Will it be Portman or Ryan or someone else named to run alongside Romney? While there are no guarantees in vice presidential nominee selections and predicting whom they will be, Portman and Ryan are likely safer bets than most of the field and one could soon be revealed as the other half of the GOP presidential ticket.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Presidential Geography: Hawaii
The 2012 presidential election is about 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 have been taking a state by state look at each state throughout the the weeks leading up to Election Day . Next up is Hawaii.
Hawaii:
The Republican Party has an unusual opportunity this year in Hawaii, a state where Democratic prospects are usually as predictably sunny as the weather. But it’s not Mitt Romney’s opportunity. President Obama, who was born in Hawaii, won his home state in 2008 by 45 percentage points, his largest margin in any state. And Mr. Obama remains “an overwhelmingly popular figure here,” Mr. Winer said.
Instead, it is the Senate race in Hawaii that is seen as competitive. The Cook Political Report rates the race a tossup, as does The New York Times.
Linda Lingle, a former Republican governor, is mounting a well-financed campaign for the seat held by Democratic Senator Daniel K. Akaka, who is retiring. Ms. Lingle’s opposition will be one of the two major Democratic candidates, Mazie Hirono or Ed Case, and will be determined in their primary election on Aug. 11.
How unusual would a victory in November be by Ms. Lingle? Hawaii’s last Republican senator was one of its first two; Senator Hiram Fong served from 1959, when Hawaii joined the union, until 1977.
The Senate contest in Hawaii is a useful lens through which to view the state’s political landscape. The state is somewhere between exceedingly and overwhelmingly Democratic. The Democratic Party has controlled politics in Hawaii for the most of the state’s history.
The 2011 State of the States survey published by Gallup, which measured the partisan lean of residents, pegged the Democratic advantage in Hawaii at 28.4 percentage points, behind only the District of Columbia. The extent of Democratic dominance is embodied in the State Senate, which currently has just a single Republican.
But every now and again, a Republican will win in Hawaii, including Ms. Lingle in 2002 and 2006. This is possible because in addition to being among the most Democratic states, Hawaii is also one of the most elastic states: when the political conditions are just right, independent voters are numerous enough that, along with just enough Republicans and conservative Democrats, they can combine to overcome the state’s leftward lean.
But that lean is strong. Democrats are aided by the state’s diversity; Hawaii is one of just four majority-minority states, with a large (39 percent) Asian community and a substantial Native Hawaiian population (10 percent). Hawaii’s Japanese-Americans (14 percent of the state population) are especially Democratic, Mr. Winer said, while the state’s Chinese-Americans tend to be more pro-business and Republican.
Hawaii is also the fifth most urban state in terms of population. Ninety-two percent of Hawaii residents are in cities. More than two-thirds of voters live on the island of Oahu, mostly in Honolulu. Like all of Hawaii, the area is Democratic, but Honolulu Democrats are a bit more blue-collar, a bit less socially progressive and a bit more pro-development than Democrats on the other islands, Mr. Winer said.
Democratic voters outside of Honolulu, on the islands of Maui and Hawaii (the Big Island) particularly, tend to be more environmentally conscious and, accordingly, mostly opposed to significant development, Mr. Winer said.
The main pocket of Republican support in Hawaii is the southeast corner of Oahu, to the east of Honolulu beginning around Waialae-Kahala and Kailua, where residents tend to be more affluent.
The Republicans generally need three ingredients to overcome the Democratic advantage in the Aloha State. First, they need lots of money. When Ms. Lingle was elected the state’s first female governor in 2002, she outspent her opponent by nearly a three-to-one margin. And so far in the 2012 campaign, Ms. Lingle has raised plenty of cash.
Also, Republicans need a strong candidate. This is more difficult than it sounds, both Mr. Milner and Mr. Winer said, because promising young politicians will usually join the Democratic Party as the most likely route to electoral success. Ms. Lingle is certainly a strong campaigner, although she is not as well-liked as she was in the 2002 campaign, or when she won re-election in 2006.
In states with a more balanced partisan makeup, money and a good candidate are often enough for victory, or at least a competitive race. But in Hawaii, a Republican will usually need something extra. “You need personality, money and some further catalyst,” Mr. Winer said, “Something has to go wrong with the Democrats.”
In 2002, when Ms. Lingle was first elected, the Democrats had plenty go wrong. Jeremy Harris, the Democratic mayor of Honolulu, was the preferred candidate to run against Ms. Lingle, and the field was kept mostly clear for him, Mr. Winer said. But after questions were raised about his fund-raising practices, Mr. Harris declined to run, leaving Democrats discombobulated. In addition, Democratic members of the Honolulu City Council had been convicted of taking bribes and misusing campaign funds. And a state senator pleaded guilty on tax evasion and campaign-finance abuse charges.
The Bellwether: Honolulu County
Because over two-thirds of voters usually cast their ballots in Honolulu County, it is almost guaranteed to be a decent barometer of the statewide vote. Since the 2000 election, the Honolulu County vote has consistently been just a few percentage points more Republican-leaning than the state as a whole.
The Bottom Line
The current FiveThirtyEight forecast gives Mr. Romney a 0 percent chance of winning Hawaii. Even if Mr. Obama were from another state, he would still be a prohibitive favorite. But as a native son, Mr. Obama will likely win around 70 percent of the vote again. Perhaps only the District of Columbia is more assured of voting for him.
Mr. Obama’s coattails will likely hurt Ms. Lingle, unless she can persuade a significant number of voters to split their ballots. FiveThirtyEight’s official Senate projections are coming soon, but at the end of 2011 we published “Senate Odds Guesstimates,” and guesstimated Ms. Lingle’s electoral chances at 25 percent. That seemed about right to both Mr. Milner and Mr. Winer.
Although a few partisan polls have shown a close race, or even Ms. Lingle leading, the last nonpartisan poll of the contest, conducted in mid-July by Ward Research for The Honolulu Star-Advertiser and Hawaii News Now, found the two top Democrats, Ms. Hirono (the congresswoman) and Mr. Case (a former congressman), trouncing Ms. Lingle by nearly 20 percentage points.
If Ms. Lingle does win, however, there could be a big reward for her: many decades in the Senate. Hawaii voters are often more deferential to incumbents than voters in other states. In 2004, when President George W. Bush was seeking re-election, Hawaii looked competitive enough that Vice President Dick Cheney flew 3,225 miles to campaign there just days before the election. The tendency to give incumbents the benefit of the doubt — whether as a patriotic by-product of the large military presence in Hawaii or evidence of the state’s many Japanese-American voters — is one reason that Hawaii has had just five senators in its 53-year history as a state. And of those five senators, none were ousted at the ballot box; four retired and one died.
The New York Times and Micah Cohen have been taking a state by state look at each state throughout the the weeks leading up to Election Day . Next up is Hawaii.
Hawaii:
The Republican Party has an unusual opportunity this year in Hawaii, a state where Democratic prospects are usually as predictably sunny as the weather. But it’s not Mitt Romney’s opportunity. President Obama, who was born in Hawaii, won his home state in 2008 by 45 percentage points, his largest margin in any state. And Mr. Obama remains “an overwhelmingly popular figure here,” Mr. Winer said.
Instead, it is the Senate race in Hawaii that is seen as competitive. The Cook Political Report rates the race a tossup, as does The New York Times.
Linda Lingle, a former Republican governor, is mounting a well-financed campaign for the seat held by Democratic Senator Daniel K. Akaka, who is retiring. Ms. Lingle’s opposition will be one of the two major Democratic candidates, Mazie Hirono or Ed Case, and will be determined in their primary election on Aug. 11.
How unusual would a victory in November be by Ms. Lingle? Hawaii’s last Republican senator was one of its first two; Senator Hiram Fong served from 1959, when Hawaii joined the union, until 1977.
The Senate contest in Hawaii is a useful lens through which to view the state’s political landscape. The state is somewhere between exceedingly and overwhelmingly Democratic. The Democratic Party has controlled politics in Hawaii for the most of the state’s history.
The 2011 State of the States survey published by Gallup, which measured the partisan lean of residents, pegged the Democratic advantage in Hawaii at 28.4 percentage points, behind only the District of Columbia. The extent of Democratic dominance is embodied in the State Senate, which currently has just a single Republican.
But every now and again, a Republican will win in Hawaii, including Ms. Lingle in 2002 and 2006. This is possible because in addition to being among the most Democratic states, Hawaii is also one of the most elastic states: when the political conditions are just right, independent voters are numerous enough that, along with just enough Republicans and conservative Democrats, they can combine to overcome the state’s leftward lean.
But that lean is strong. Democrats are aided by the state’s diversity; Hawaii is one of just four majority-minority states, with a large (39 percent) Asian community and a substantial Native Hawaiian population (10 percent). Hawaii’s Japanese-Americans (14 percent of the state population) are especially Democratic, Mr. Winer said, while the state’s Chinese-Americans tend to be more pro-business and Republican.
Hawaii is also the fifth most urban state in terms of population. Ninety-two percent of Hawaii residents are in cities. More than two-thirds of voters live on the island of Oahu, mostly in Honolulu. Like all of Hawaii, the area is Democratic, but Honolulu Democrats are a bit more blue-collar, a bit less socially progressive and a bit more pro-development than Democrats on the other islands, Mr. Winer said.
Democratic voters outside of Honolulu, on the islands of Maui and Hawaii (the Big Island) particularly, tend to be more environmentally conscious and, accordingly, mostly opposed to significant development, Mr. Winer said.
The main pocket of Republican support in Hawaii is the southeast corner of Oahu, to the east of Honolulu beginning around Waialae-Kahala and Kailua, where residents tend to be more affluent.
The Republicans generally need three ingredients to overcome the Democratic advantage in the Aloha State. First, they need lots of money. When Ms. Lingle was elected the state’s first female governor in 2002, she outspent her opponent by nearly a three-to-one margin. And so far in the 2012 campaign, Ms. Lingle has raised plenty of cash.
Also, Republicans need a strong candidate. This is more difficult than it sounds, both Mr. Milner and Mr. Winer said, because promising young politicians will usually join the Democratic Party as the most likely route to electoral success. Ms. Lingle is certainly a strong campaigner, although she is not as well-liked as she was in the 2002 campaign, or when she won re-election in 2006.
In states with a more balanced partisan makeup, money and a good candidate are often enough for victory, or at least a competitive race. But in Hawaii, a Republican will usually need something extra. “You need personality, money and some further catalyst,” Mr. Winer said, “Something has to go wrong with the Democrats.”
In 2002, when Ms. Lingle was first elected, the Democrats had plenty go wrong. Jeremy Harris, the Democratic mayor of Honolulu, was the preferred candidate to run against Ms. Lingle, and the field was kept mostly clear for him, Mr. Winer said. But after questions were raised about his fund-raising practices, Mr. Harris declined to run, leaving Democrats discombobulated. In addition, Democratic members of the Honolulu City Council had been convicted of taking bribes and misusing campaign funds. And a state senator pleaded guilty on tax evasion and campaign-finance abuse charges.
The Bellwether: Honolulu County
Because over two-thirds of voters usually cast their ballots in Honolulu County, it is almost guaranteed to be a decent barometer of the statewide vote. Since the 2000 election, the Honolulu County vote has consistently been just a few percentage points more Republican-leaning than the state as a whole.
The Bottom Line
The current FiveThirtyEight forecast gives Mr. Romney a 0 percent chance of winning Hawaii. Even if Mr. Obama were from another state, he would still be a prohibitive favorite. But as a native son, Mr. Obama will likely win around 70 percent of the vote again. Perhaps only the District of Columbia is more assured of voting for him.
Mr. Obama’s coattails will likely hurt Ms. Lingle, unless she can persuade a significant number of voters to split their ballots. FiveThirtyEight’s official Senate projections are coming soon, but at the end of 2011 we published “Senate Odds Guesstimates,” and guesstimated Ms. Lingle’s electoral chances at 25 percent. That seemed about right to both Mr. Milner and Mr. Winer.
Although a few partisan polls have shown a close race, or even Ms. Lingle leading, the last nonpartisan poll of the contest, conducted in mid-July by Ward Research for The Honolulu Star-Advertiser and Hawaii News Now, found the two top Democrats, Ms. Hirono (the congresswoman) and Mr. Case (a former congressman), trouncing Ms. Lingle by nearly 20 percentage points.
If Ms. Lingle does win, however, there could be a big reward for her: many decades in the Senate. Hawaii voters are often more deferential to incumbents than voters in other states. In 2004, when President George W. Bush was seeking re-election, Hawaii looked competitive enough that Vice President Dick Cheney flew 3,225 miles to campaign there just days before the election. The tendency to give incumbents the benefit of the doubt — whether as a patriotic by-product of the large military presence in Hawaii or evidence of the state’s many Japanese-American voters — is one reason that Hawaii has had just five senators in its 53-year history as a state. And of those five senators, none were ousted at the ballot box; four retired and one died.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
