The 2012 presidential election is a little more than a month 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 Idaho.
Idaho:
Idaho is a red state. It’s a really red state. It is rural, socially conservative and overwhelmingly white. Its electorate is mostly anti-abortion, anti-union and anti-federal government, Mr. Adler said.
Idaho hasn’t voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1964, and it is about twice as Republican-leaning in presidential elections as Mississippi.
“Idaho has been a dark, grim landscape politically for Democrats for some time,” Mr. Adler said.
And this year’s presidential election is likely to be even worse for Democrats.
According to the current FiveThirtyEight forecast, Idaho will be one of the states where Mr. Romney improves on Senator John McCain’s 2008 performance by the largest margin. Utah tops that list, followed by Wisconsin, Nevada, Connecticut, Michigan and then Idaho.
What’s special about those states? Mr. Romney’s running mate, Representative Paul D. Ryan, is from Wisconsin. Mr. Romney’s father, George Romney, was governor of Michigan. And the Wall Street-connected community in Connecticut will probably boost Mr. Romney’s numbers there.
In Utah, Idaho and Nevada, however, it’s religion. Mr. Romney is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and those three states have the three highest percentages of Mormons.
In Utah, 67 percent of residents are L.D.S. members, according to a Gallup survey. Idaho is second with 21 percent, and Nevada is tied for third with 9 percent.
The evidence is circumstantial, but it suggests that Mr. Romney’s faith has helped him in states (Idaho and Utah) that he was never going to lose, and a state (Nevada) where he was going to lose by too much to make a difference. Although if the race tightens up nationally, Mr. Obama’s lead in Nevada is likely to narrow as well. And if the race were closer in Nevada, an increase in the Mormon vote could be enough to tip the state in his favor. (We’ll have more on Nevada later in this series).
One might expect Mr. Romney’s faith to have more of an impact in states with large L.D.S. communities. But Mormons have always been among the most Republican-leaning religious groups, according to the Pew-Forum on Religion & Public Life. In 2010, Mormon voters identified as Republicans over Democrats by about 3 to 1.
The conservatism of L.D.S. voters is evident in southeastern Idaho, which borders Utah and is the most heavily Mormon part of the state. Mr. Romney won by large margins there in Idaho’s Republican caucuses this year.
Most of southeastern Idaho is incredibly conservative. “Democrats hope to keep Republican numbers down to 65 percent in the southeast,” Mr. Adler said.
The southwest, known as the Treasure Valley, is centered on Boise, the state’s main population hub. Boise has been a high-tech center ever since Micron Technology started there in the 1970s. Micron is still the largest employer in the state, Mr. Adler said, although it laid workers off during the recession.
Treasure Valley has attracted an influx of left-leaning migrants from the East and West coasts, as well as migrants from Latin America. The demographic changes have made Boise’s Ada County more competitive politically.
“The Treasure Valley is the best opportunity that Democrats have,” Mr. Adler said.
But the rapid population growth in Idaho over the last two decades — the state grew from one to 1.57 million residents from 1990 to 2010 — has been mixed politically. While Ada County is more competitive, Boise is still a conservative city as far as cities go; Senator John McCain won a slim majority in Ada County in 2008. Conservative migrants from places like Orange County, Calif., have moved to Idaho, too, drawn to the state’s clean air, lax business regulations and family-friendly ethos.
While Democrats are slowly making gains in the southwest, they have lost ground in northern Idaho, known as the Panhandle. The Panhandle — once a major mining region — was traditionally Democratic-leaning. Unions were powerful. But over the last three decades, mining has receded as an economic driver in Idaho, and Idaho became a “right to work” state in 1985.
The Panhandle is now mostly Republican, except for Latah County, home to the University of Idaho in Moscow. Latah County is one of just three counties Mr. Obama won in 2008.
The only truly blue county in Idaho is Blaine County in the Magic Valley. Blaine County includes the ski-resort city of Sun Valley and next-door Ketchum. Both towns have attracted affluent, liberal transplants from other states.
The Bellwether: Kootenai County
Kootenai County, anchored by Coeur d’Alene, is an emerging bellwether in Idaho. Historically the center of a region with a natural resources-based economy, Coeur d’Alene is now also a tourist destination, Mr. Adler said. And Kootenai County has reflected the political shift in Northern Idaho generally — once Democratic, now Republican.
In the 2000 presidential election, Kootenai County was three percentage points more Democratic than the state. In 2004, it was two percentage points more Democratic. And in 2008, it was almost perfect.
The Bottom Line
Mr. Romney is a 100 percent favorite to carry Idaho, according to the current FiveThirtyEight forecast. It’s hard to overstate just how Republican Idaho is. The state has had Democrats in office, notably Cecil D. Andrus, the governor from 1971 to 1977 and again from 1987 to 1995, and Frank Church, who was a United States senator from Idaho from 1957 to 1981.
But those days seem largely over. Idaho is now thoroughly Republican.
The one trend in Idaho that Democrats can pin their hopes to, Mr. Adler said, is the state’s growing Hispanic population, which is nearing 12 percent, according to the Census Bureau. Agriculture is a dominant industry in Idaho; the state produces about a third of the nation’s potatoes (about 60 percent of Idaho potatoes go to making french fries).
Those agricultural jobs have attracted Hispanic workers, and will likely continue to. But it may be a long time before that has any real effect on the politics of the state.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Fixing the Filibuster
There are certainly areas of improvement with today's Congress. One of the more glaring issues that has repeatedly slowed votes and legislation has been the overuse and at times abuse of the filibuster. It was a tool created for the U.S. Senate to give the minority tool to protect them as well as allow the whole body to have a way to slow legislation from being quickly rammed through. However, in recent years; it is being used much more by the minority party to stall and stop any legislation or appointments supported by the party in control. There have been fewer bills in this Congress than any other Congress of the last 60 years.
With the filibuster and its current poison on the U.S. Senate and Congress, the Washington Post's Matt Miller provided recently some food for thought on the issue.
For Miller:
Here’s my plea to Jim Lehrer: At the first presidential debate in Denver next Wednesday, ask the candidates if they are in favor of restoring majority rule in this country. In other words, ask them if they would urge the Senate to scrap the filibuster — and if not, how do they expect to get anything done?
It’s an ideal debate question for five reasons.
First, it’s not the kind of thing on which the candidates will have prepared snoozy, market-tested talking points. So it might give voters the chance to see Mitt Romney and Barack Obama actually think in public.
Second, unlike jobs, or the future of Medicare, the candidates won’t raise the matter themselves.
Third, it’s not a partisan issue. Since the Senate’s 60-vote requirement to end debate is prone to abuse by both parties, the candidates might even find common ground.
Fourth, a discussion of today’s filibuster mess — along with context that Mr. Lehrer can introduce as moderator — will help millions of voters understand what’s behind a big chunk of Washington’s maddening dysfunction.
Finally — and forgive me for raising my voice here — if we don’t scrap the filibuster, we simply can’t govern this country and meet the challenges of the 21st century.
Mr. Lehrer can’t strike this desperate tone, of course, but surely I can in pleading with him to give the filibuster the centrality it deserves. How many Americans know that we don’t actually have majority rule today in this country? How many schoolchildren are taught that a rule of the Senate lets 41 senators representing as little as 11 percent of the population stop anything from happening?
Once upon a time, the filibuster didn’t matter this much. In 1939, the year Mr. Smith went to Washington in Frank Capra’s iconic film, the filibuster wasn’t used even once. It was easy to cast it as a way for a noble statesman to make a rare stand on a matter of conscience (though the filibuster’s less savory but more frequent mid-20th century use was for killing civil rights bills). In the old days, moreover, a filibustering senator actually had to hold the floor to make his point.
That was then. In recent years, the Republican minority in the Senate has used the filibuster more than 300 times. The mere threat of a filibuster shuts down or waters down legislation (from health care to bank reform) every day. It’s no exaggeration to say you can’t get anything done in the Senate nowadays without 60 votes — save for the few things you can shoehorn into special budget “reconciliation” bills that require only a simple majority. And today, the minority can bottle things up quietly without explaining themselves in public, as Jimmy Stewart did.
The result is the tyranny of the minority that the founders warned against. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 75, noted that “every political establishment in which this [supermajority] principal has prevailed, is a history of impotence, perplexity and disorder.” James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 58 that with a supermajority requirement, the “fundamental principle of free government would be reversed.”
To make matters even crazier, Senate rules say that to amend or end the filibuster takes not just 60 votes but 67!
I don’t understand why presidential candidates don’t put a return to majority rule at the heart of their campaigns. Ultimately this means neither President Obama nor Mitt Romney is asking for a mandate to get things done. Whatever happened to “send me a Congress I can work with”? Why isn’t “join me in restoring majority rule so we can meet our challenges” an indispensable cry on the stump?
Since both men know filibuster reform is essential for governance, their silence is revealing. It means they both think they’ll somehow be able to fix this via an “inside game” (good luck). It also means they believe the American public can’t be mobilized to defend the idea of majority rule. Talk about democratically depressing.
Yet what theories of governance do the candidates offer instead? Obama says if he wins perhaps “the fever will have broken” when it comes to GOP intransigence. Romney says he got things done as governor in a Democratic state, so he knows how to make this work.
Sorry, gentlemen, but, as the cliche runs, hope isn’t a plan.
In the Senate, neither party has been willing to give up the power they might crave if they’re in the minority. Tom Harkin, to his credit, has tried a few times since 1995 to end the madness, but to no avail. The No Labels group has smartly called for a filibuster fix as part of a broader agenda to “Make Congress Work.” Meanwhile, a revitalized Common Cause has filed suit to have the filibuster ruled unconstitutional.
But none of this is breaking through. That’s where Mr. Lehrer comes in. One question on this in the debates — and the answers it calls forth from Obama and Romney — could spark an ocean of coverage and commentary, and ignite a debate that leads the Senate to revise its rules no matter who wins.
Never could one moderator do so much via so little.
Please, Jim — for all of us — pop the question.
With the filibuster and its current poison on the U.S. Senate and Congress, the Washington Post's Matt Miller provided recently some food for thought on the issue.
For Miller:
Here’s my plea to Jim Lehrer: At the first presidential debate in Denver next Wednesday, ask the candidates if they are in favor of restoring majority rule in this country. In other words, ask them if they would urge the Senate to scrap the filibuster — and if not, how do they expect to get anything done?
It’s an ideal debate question for five reasons.
First, it’s not the kind of thing on which the candidates will have prepared snoozy, market-tested talking points. So it might give voters the chance to see Mitt Romney and Barack Obama actually think in public.
Second, unlike jobs, or the future of Medicare, the candidates won’t raise the matter themselves.
Third, it’s not a partisan issue. Since the Senate’s 60-vote requirement to end debate is prone to abuse by both parties, the candidates might even find common ground.
Fourth, a discussion of today’s filibuster mess — along with context that Mr. Lehrer can introduce as moderator — will help millions of voters understand what’s behind a big chunk of Washington’s maddening dysfunction.
Finally — and forgive me for raising my voice here — if we don’t scrap the filibuster, we simply can’t govern this country and meet the challenges of the 21st century.
Mr. Lehrer can’t strike this desperate tone, of course, but surely I can in pleading with him to give the filibuster the centrality it deserves. How many Americans know that we don’t actually have majority rule today in this country? How many schoolchildren are taught that a rule of the Senate lets 41 senators representing as little as 11 percent of the population stop anything from happening?
Once upon a time, the filibuster didn’t matter this much. In 1939, the year Mr. Smith went to Washington in Frank Capra’s iconic film, the filibuster wasn’t used even once. It was easy to cast it as a way for a noble statesman to make a rare stand on a matter of conscience (though the filibuster’s less savory but more frequent mid-20th century use was for killing civil rights bills). In the old days, moreover, a filibustering senator actually had to hold the floor to make his point.
That was then. In recent years, the Republican minority in the Senate has used the filibuster more than 300 times. The mere threat of a filibuster shuts down or waters down legislation (from health care to bank reform) every day. It’s no exaggeration to say you can’t get anything done in the Senate nowadays without 60 votes — save for the few things you can shoehorn into special budget “reconciliation” bills that require only a simple majority. And today, the minority can bottle things up quietly without explaining themselves in public, as Jimmy Stewart did.
The result is the tyranny of the minority that the founders warned against. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 75, noted that “every political establishment in which this [supermajority] principal has prevailed, is a history of impotence, perplexity and disorder.” James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 58 that with a supermajority requirement, the “fundamental principle of free government would be reversed.”
To make matters even crazier, Senate rules say that to amend or end the filibuster takes not just 60 votes but 67!
I don’t understand why presidential candidates don’t put a return to majority rule at the heart of their campaigns. Ultimately this means neither President Obama nor Mitt Romney is asking for a mandate to get things done. Whatever happened to “send me a Congress I can work with”? Why isn’t “join me in restoring majority rule so we can meet our challenges” an indispensable cry on the stump?
Since both men know filibuster reform is essential for governance, their silence is revealing. It means they both think they’ll somehow be able to fix this via an “inside game” (good luck). It also means they believe the American public can’t be mobilized to defend the idea of majority rule. Talk about democratically depressing.
Yet what theories of governance do the candidates offer instead? Obama says if he wins perhaps “the fever will have broken” when it comes to GOP intransigence. Romney says he got things done as governor in a Democratic state, so he knows how to make this work.
Sorry, gentlemen, but, as the cliche runs, hope isn’t a plan.
In the Senate, neither party has been willing to give up the power they might crave if they’re in the minority. Tom Harkin, to his credit, has tried a few times since 1995 to end the madness, but to no avail. The No Labels group has smartly called for a filibuster fix as part of a broader agenda to “Make Congress Work.” Meanwhile, a revitalized Common Cause has filed suit to have the filibuster ruled unconstitutional.
But none of this is breaking through. That’s where Mr. Lehrer comes in. One question on this in the debates — and the answers it calls forth from Obama and Romney — could spark an ocean of coverage and commentary, and ignite a debate that leads the Senate to revise its rules no matter who wins.
Never could one moderator do so much via so little.
Please, Jim — for all of us — pop the question.
Presidential Geography: Maryland
The 2012 presidential election is a little more than a month 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 Maryland.
Maryland:
Political contests at the state and national level tend to be settled in the suburbs. Republicans carry the countryside, Democrats win by large margins in big cities, and both parties battle to win the votes of those living in between.
That is an oversimplification, of course, but it’s a useful rule of thumb. In every presidential election since 1980, the candidate who won the suburban vote also won the national popular vote, according to exit polls.
Suburbia’s informal role as the last arbiter of elections also explains why Maryland is among the most Democratic-leaning states. According to the current FiveThirtyEight projection, President Obama will carry Maryland by 23 percentage points; Mitt Romney is projected to win just 39 percent.
Maryland’s urban and rural areas follow the normal partisan pattern: Baltimore is overwhelmingly Democratic, while the more rural parts of the state — the Eastern Shore and western Maryland — tend to vote Republican.
But the pattern falls apart in Maryland’s suburbs, particularly those in Montgomery County and Prince George’s County. For several reasons, a large chunk of suburban Maryland behaves more like a city politically, favoring Democrats by significant margins.
Not all suburbs are equally competitive. Generally, suburbs in the Northeast have been less friendly to the Republican Party than those in the Deep South or Great Plains ever since cultural conservatism gained sway in the party. That dynamic accounts for much of suburban Maryland’s partisan lean (although, Maryland’s northern border doubles as the Mason-Dixon line).
Baltimore and Baltimore County — which report election returns separately — vote like a typical city and suburban county in the Northeast; in 2008, Mr. Obama won 87 percent of the vote in Baltimore and 57 percent in Baltimore County.
But the same is not true for Maryland’s share of suburban Washington. Mr. Obama won 89 percent in Prince George’s County and 72 percent in Montgomery County, both of which have been made more Democratic-leaning, at least partly, because the federal government is right next door. Both counties have a large population of government workers and government contractors, and both counties are more diverse than typical suburbia.
Maryland has the highest share of black residents of any state outside the South, and the fourth-highest proportion overall, 29 percent. That alone would make the state Democratic. But Maryland’s African-American community is more affluent and more suburban than in most other states (perhaps only the Atlanta region is comparable). The federal government, as Mr. Kettl explained: “has long put a very high priority on ensuring broad and diverse hiring. For a very long time, the government was a place where minority workers could get fair treatment in employment. That, in turn, helped create strong and stable middle-class black communities.”
As a result, Prince George’s County, where the majority of the population is black, is highly educated and affluent; it is the 69th wealthiest county in the country, ranked by household median income. That wealth, as well as the wealth of the surrounding suburbs in Montgomery and Howard Counties, has been partly fueled by federal dollars.
And that economic relationship is a hurdle for Republicans.
The Washington suburbs have expanded as the federal bureaucracy has grown. An army of government workers, as well as contractors directly and indirectly employed by the government, live in suburban Maryland. The Republican Party’s message is ill-suited to win their votes. The “evils of big government” narrative is not an effective pitch to a voter who works for big government.
This dynamic is clearly evident in Montgomery County, which is home to araft of federal agencies, that have helped spawn booming support industries, like defense, biotechnology, technology and health care. The bustling economy has, in turn, attracted immigration. Montgomery is now a majority minority county with large black, Asian and Hispanic populations.
The Bellwether: Howard County
The spread of suburban Washington has passed through Montgomery County and reached Howard County, beginning a transformation from rural and Republican to suburban and Democratic.
At this point in its transition, it is a slightly Republican-leaning bellwether. It has been a couple percentage points to the right of the state in the last two presidential elections. But because the suburbs have continued to expand since 2008, Howard County may be an even more accurate bellwether in this year’s race.
The Bottom Line
If the Washington metropolitan area continues to expand, Maryland will only get more Democratic. The suburban sprawl has already reached previously rural counties like Howard, Charles and Frederick, Mr. Sheckels said, and Democratic constituencies have been encroaching on Maryland’s Republican territory: western Maryland, Southern Maryland and the Eastern Shore.
For example, historically Republican-leaning Anne Arundel County went just barely to Senator John McCain in 2008, despite the large military presence around Annapolis.
Living next to the federal government has had a profound effect on the state. Eleven of Maryland’s 24 counties are in the top 100 most affluent counties by median income. And the state overall has the highest household median income in the country, according to the Census Bureau.
But talk of austerity has increased in Washington, and if it arrives, the region will likely feel the impact economically. In turn, suburban expansion could slow.
The political preferences of Maryland’s ethnically diverse suburbs may also be a harbinger of things to come in other states. Suburban communities across the country became significantly more diverse throughout the 2000s, and it has started to show. Mr. Obama’s share of the suburban vote was the highest of any Democrat since 1980.
Mr. Obama is a 100 percent favorite to carry Maryland, according to the current FiveThirtyEight forecast, and the presidential race is unlikely to receive much attention there.
Instead, same-sex marriage is likely to be a major focus of the fall campaign. Opponents of Maryland’s Civil Marriage Protection Act, which allows same-sex couples to obtain a civil marriage license, gathered enough signatures to put Question 6 on the ballot. The referendum asks Maryland residents to vote for or against the law. If it passes, and polling shows that it may, the Maryland electorate would be the first to endorse same-sex marriage at the ballot box.
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 Maryland.
Maryland:
Political contests at the state and national level tend to be settled in the suburbs. Republicans carry the countryside, Democrats win by large margins in big cities, and both parties battle to win the votes of those living in between.
That is an oversimplification, of course, but it’s a useful rule of thumb. In every presidential election since 1980, the candidate who won the suburban vote also won the national popular vote, according to exit polls.
Suburbia’s informal role as the last arbiter of elections also explains why Maryland is among the most Democratic-leaning states. According to the current FiveThirtyEight projection, President Obama will carry Maryland by 23 percentage points; Mitt Romney is projected to win just 39 percent.
Maryland’s urban and rural areas follow the normal partisan pattern: Baltimore is overwhelmingly Democratic, while the more rural parts of the state — the Eastern Shore and western Maryland — tend to vote Republican.
But the pattern falls apart in Maryland’s suburbs, particularly those in Montgomery County and Prince George’s County. For several reasons, a large chunk of suburban Maryland behaves more like a city politically, favoring Democrats by significant margins.
Not all suburbs are equally competitive. Generally, suburbs in the Northeast have been less friendly to the Republican Party than those in the Deep South or Great Plains ever since cultural conservatism gained sway in the party. That dynamic accounts for much of suburban Maryland’s partisan lean (although, Maryland’s northern border doubles as the Mason-Dixon line).
Baltimore and Baltimore County — which report election returns separately — vote like a typical city and suburban county in the Northeast; in 2008, Mr. Obama won 87 percent of the vote in Baltimore and 57 percent in Baltimore County.
But the same is not true for Maryland’s share of suburban Washington. Mr. Obama won 89 percent in Prince George’s County and 72 percent in Montgomery County, both of which have been made more Democratic-leaning, at least partly, because the federal government is right next door. Both counties have a large population of government workers and government contractors, and both counties are more diverse than typical suburbia.
Maryland has the highest share of black residents of any state outside the South, and the fourth-highest proportion overall, 29 percent. That alone would make the state Democratic. But Maryland’s African-American community is more affluent and more suburban than in most other states (perhaps only the Atlanta region is comparable). The federal government, as Mr. Kettl explained: “has long put a very high priority on ensuring broad and diverse hiring. For a very long time, the government was a place where minority workers could get fair treatment in employment. That, in turn, helped create strong and stable middle-class black communities.”
As a result, Prince George’s County, where the majority of the population is black, is highly educated and affluent; it is the 69th wealthiest county in the country, ranked by household median income. That wealth, as well as the wealth of the surrounding suburbs in Montgomery and Howard Counties, has been partly fueled by federal dollars.
And that economic relationship is a hurdle for Republicans.
The Washington suburbs have expanded as the federal bureaucracy has grown. An army of government workers, as well as contractors directly and indirectly employed by the government, live in suburban Maryland. The Republican Party’s message is ill-suited to win their votes. The “evils of big government” narrative is not an effective pitch to a voter who works for big government.
This dynamic is clearly evident in Montgomery County, which is home to araft of federal agencies, that have helped spawn booming support industries, like defense, biotechnology, technology and health care. The bustling economy has, in turn, attracted immigration. Montgomery is now a majority minority county with large black, Asian and Hispanic populations.
The Bellwether: Howard County
The spread of suburban Washington has passed through Montgomery County and reached Howard County, beginning a transformation from rural and Republican to suburban and Democratic.
At this point in its transition, it is a slightly Republican-leaning bellwether. It has been a couple percentage points to the right of the state in the last two presidential elections. But because the suburbs have continued to expand since 2008, Howard County may be an even more accurate bellwether in this year’s race.
The Bottom Line
If the Washington metropolitan area continues to expand, Maryland will only get more Democratic. The suburban sprawl has already reached previously rural counties like Howard, Charles and Frederick, Mr. Sheckels said, and Democratic constituencies have been encroaching on Maryland’s Republican territory: western Maryland, Southern Maryland and the Eastern Shore.
For example, historically Republican-leaning Anne Arundel County went just barely to Senator John McCain in 2008, despite the large military presence around Annapolis.
Living next to the federal government has had a profound effect on the state. Eleven of Maryland’s 24 counties are in the top 100 most affluent counties by median income. And the state overall has the highest household median income in the country, according to the Census Bureau.
But talk of austerity has increased in Washington, and if it arrives, the region will likely feel the impact economically. In turn, suburban expansion could slow.
The political preferences of Maryland’s ethnically diverse suburbs may also be a harbinger of things to come in other states. Suburban communities across the country became significantly more diverse throughout the 2000s, and it has started to show. Mr. Obama’s share of the suburban vote was the highest of any Democrat since 1980.
Mr. Obama is a 100 percent favorite to carry Maryland, according to the current FiveThirtyEight forecast, and the presidential race is unlikely to receive much attention there.
Instead, same-sex marriage is likely to be a major focus of the fall campaign. Opponents of Maryland’s Civil Marriage Protection Act, which allows same-sex couples to obtain a civil marriage license, gathered enough signatures to put Question 6 on the ballot. The referendum asks Maryland residents to vote for or against the law. If it passes, and polling shows that it may, the Maryland electorate would be the first to endorse same-sex marriage at the ballot box.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Presidential Geography: Washington
The 2012 presidential election is a little more than a month 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 Washington.
Washington:
In presidential elections from the early 1880s through the mid-20th century, Washington was a swing state, even slightly Republican-leaning. In 1980, Ronald Reagan over-performed in Washington relative to his margin of victory in the nation as a whole.
After that election, however, the state’s partisan makeup began to shift. Washington voters began to move — and fairly quickly — toward the Democratic Party.
Reagan carried the state again in 1984, but he underperformed his national popular vote by four percentage points. By the 1988 election, Washington had been transformed. It was nine percentage points more Democratic-leaning than the nation, and George H. W. Bush failed to carry it. Washington has been reliably blue ever since.
“Democrats had about a 10 point shift in their direction in about a decade,” Mr. Smith said.
The rapid political change in Washington was fueled by the rise of cultural conservatism in the Republican Party — the same dynamic that turned the South deep red and pushed Northeastern states like New Jersey, Delaware and Connecticut into the Democratic column.
“Washington was a socially liberal state,” Mr. Smith said, “and as the social issues became more prominent on the national scene in the 1980s, that social liberalism pushed the state more towards the Democratic side,” Mr. Smith said.
In particular, Washington has been progressive on women’s issues.1 It was early to embrace women’s suffrage (in fact, women temporarily gained the right to vote in territorial Washington). In 1926, Seattle elected the nation’s first female mayor of a major American city, Bertha K. Landes. Washington also elected one of the nation’s earliest female governors, Dixy Lee Ray.
Washington is still taking a leading role in female leadership. For the last eight years, Washington has had a female governor and two female senators, the only time in the nation’s history that a state has had women in all three offices.
Given Washington’s position on women’s rights — it was one of the first states to liberalize abortion laws — and its status as one of the least religious states, it is no coincidence that as abortion became a driving national issue, the Evergreen State over all became more Democratic-leaning. But that realignment has been limited to Washington’s urban and suburban areas.
Washington’s political landscape is similar to Oregon’s: a populous and liberal west; and a rural and conservative east. The divide in both states is stark and driven by some of the same issues.
Washington’s population is clustered in and around Seattle, which has seen an influx of well-educated voters drawn to work in biotechnology firms in towns like Bothell and to jobs with Microsoft in Redmond.
Seattle is one of the most liberal cities in the nation, home to young, single professionals and one of the country’s largest gay communities. Seattle’s King County is also one of Washington’s most diverse areas; it is 15 percent Asian, 9 percent Hispanic and 7 percent black.
Although Western Washington is Democratic-leaning, there are some nuances. Southwest Washington, for instance, is more politically balanced than the Seattle area. The Olympia area skews liberal. But the fast-growing Vancouver area, just across the state line from Portland, Ore., is close to politically even. Vancouver’s Clark County is home to many tax-conscious conservatives, who came to income-tax-free Washington but settled close enough to the border to shop in sales-tax-free Oregon.
Traveling east, the Cascade Mountains mark the transition into majority Republican Washington, where the economy is based much more on the land. Central Washington, just east of the Cascades, is the most rural and conservative region of the state, Mr. Smith said. In south-central Washington, much of the nation’s apples and hops are grown in the Yakima Valley.
As you travel farther east and reach Spokane, population density increases, but not to Seattle-like levels. Republicans are a majority, but a less dramatic one compared to central Washington.
The Bellwether: Snohomish County
Anchored by Everett, where Boeing has a large plant, Snohomish County is “far enough away from the urban core to become somewhat less liberal, but not out in a rural area that becomes conservative,” Mr. Smith said.
Accordingly, it has been an almost exact barometer of Washington’s political mood in the last three presidential elections. Snohomish County was just one percentage point more Democratic than the state in 2000 and 2008, and it matched the statewide vote perfectly in 2004.
The Bottom Line
Despite the similarities between Washington’s and Oregon’s political landscapes, Washington is at least slightly more Democratic-leaning. Oregon has seen some close presidential races in recent years; Washington has not.
In this year’s race, President Obama is a 99 percent favorite in Washington and a 98 percent favorite in Oregon. That is obviously not a big difference. But Mr. Obama has a 12 percentage point lead over Mitt Romney in Washington in FiveThirtyEight’s adjusted polling average. In Oregon, Mr. Obama is ahead by 6.5 percentage points.
In both states, political preferences along the Pacific Coast tend to outweigh the ideology of those inland. But in Oregon, it is a closer contest (if not exactly close).
Eastern Washington, with more than half the state’s land, still casts only about a fifth of Washington’s votes. That’s less than Seattle’s King County, which alone accounts for almost a third of the statewide vote.
Washington’s population distribution and cultural progressivism, particularly on women’s issues, combine to make it very difficult for Republicans to compete in statewide races.
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 Washington.
Washington:
In presidential elections from the early 1880s through the mid-20th century, Washington was a swing state, even slightly Republican-leaning. In 1980, Ronald Reagan over-performed in Washington relative to his margin of victory in the nation as a whole.
After that election, however, the state’s partisan makeup began to shift. Washington voters began to move — and fairly quickly — toward the Democratic Party.
Reagan carried the state again in 1984, but he underperformed his national popular vote by four percentage points. By the 1988 election, Washington had been transformed. It was nine percentage points more Democratic-leaning than the nation, and George H. W. Bush failed to carry it. Washington has been reliably blue ever since.
“Democrats had about a 10 point shift in their direction in about a decade,” Mr. Smith said.
The rapid political change in Washington was fueled by the rise of cultural conservatism in the Republican Party — the same dynamic that turned the South deep red and pushed Northeastern states like New Jersey, Delaware and Connecticut into the Democratic column.
“Washington was a socially liberal state,” Mr. Smith said, “and as the social issues became more prominent on the national scene in the 1980s, that social liberalism pushed the state more towards the Democratic side,” Mr. Smith said.
In particular, Washington has been progressive on women’s issues.1 It was early to embrace women’s suffrage (in fact, women temporarily gained the right to vote in territorial Washington). In 1926, Seattle elected the nation’s first female mayor of a major American city, Bertha K. Landes. Washington also elected one of the nation’s earliest female governors, Dixy Lee Ray.
Washington is still taking a leading role in female leadership. For the last eight years, Washington has had a female governor and two female senators, the only time in the nation’s history that a state has had women in all three offices.
Given Washington’s position on women’s rights — it was one of the first states to liberalize abortion laws — and its status as one of the least religious states, it is no coincidence that as abortion became a driving national issue, the Evergreen State over all became more Democratic-leaning. But that realignment has been limited to Washington’s urban and suburban areas.
Washington’s political landscape is similar to Oregon’s: a populous and liberal west; and a rural and conservative east. The divide in both states is stark and driven by some of the same issues.
Washington’s population is clustered in and around Seattle, which has seen an influx of well-educated voters drawn to work in biotechnology firms in towns like Bothell and to jobs with Microsoft in Redmond.
Seattle is one of the most liberal cities in the nation, home to young, single professionals and one of the country’s largest gay communities. Seattle’s King County is also one of Washington’s most diverse areas; it is 15 percent Asian, 9 percent Hispanic and 7 percent black.
Although Western Washington is Democratic-leaning, there are some nuances. Southwest Washington, for instance, is more politically balanced than the Seattle area. The Olympia area skews liberal. But the fast-growing Vancouver area, just across the state line from Portland, Ore., is close to politically even. Vancouver’s Clark County is home to many tax-conscious conservatives, who came to income-tax-free Washington but settled close enough to the border to shop in sales-tax-free Oregon.
Traveling east, the Cascade Mountains mark the transition into majority Republican Washington, where the economy is based much more on the land. Central Washington, just east of the Cascades, is the most rural and conservative region of the state, Mr. Smith said. In south-central Washington, much of the nation’s apples and hops are grown in the Yakima Valley.
As you travel farther east and reach Spokane, population density increases, but not to Seattle-like levels. Republicans are a majority, but a less dramatic one compared to central Washington.
The Bellwether: Snohomish County
Anchored by Everett, where Boeing has a large plant, Snohomish County is “far enough away from the urban core to become somewhat less liberal, but not out in a rural area that becomes conservative,” Mr. Smith said.
Accordingly, it has been an almost exact barometer of Washington’s political mood in the last three presidential elections. Snohomish County was just one percentage point more Democratic than the state in 2000 and 2008, and it matched the statewide vote perfectly in 2004.
The Bottom Line
Despite the similarities between Washington’s and Oregon’s political landscapes, Washington is at least slightly more Democratic-leaning. Oregon has seen some close presidential races in recent years; Washington has not.
In this year’s race, President Obama is a 99 percent favorite in Washington and a 98 percent favorite in Oregon. That is obviously not a big difference. But Mr. Obama has a 12 percentage point lead over Mitt Romney in Washington in FiveThirtyEight’s adjusted polling average. In Oregon, Mr. Obama is ahead by 6.5 percentage points.
In both states, political preferences along the Pacific Coast tend to outweigh the ideology of those inland. But in Oregon, it is a closer contest (if not exactly close).
Eastern Washington, with more than half the state’s land, still casts only about a fifth of Washington’s votes. That’s less than Seattle’s King County, which alone accounts for almost a third of the statewide vote.
Washington’s population distribution and cultural progressivism, particularly on women’s issues, combine to make it very difficult for Republicans to compete in statewide races.
Monday, September 24, 2012
Presidential Geography: Nebraska
The 2012 presidential election is a little more than 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 Nebraska.
Nebraska:
The most impressive victory of President Obama’s 2008 campaign may have also been the most minute: he won a single electoral vote by a single percentage point in Nebraska’s Second Congressional District. (Nebraska is one of two states, along with Maine, that awards electoral votes by Congressional district.)
Nebraska’s Second District was the reddest electoral vote Mr. Obama carried in 2008. It falls to the right of traditionally Republican states like North Carolina and Virginia onFiveThirtyEight’s Presidential Voting Indexand was the farthest Mr. Obama was able to penetrate into G.O.P. territory.
But after the election, Nebraska Republicans responded with a fairly simple strategy. They moved the Second District even farther behind the battlements, redrawing the district lines after the 2010 Census to make it more Republican and “avoid what they considered to be the debacle of losing the seat to Obama in 2008,” Mr. Landow said.
The Second District’s new boundaries make it more likely that all five of Nebraska’s electoral votes will go to Mitt Romney this year. As a whole, Nebraska is among the most conservative states. In the last half-century, only Utah has favored G.O.P. presidential candidates by consistently wider margins.
Nebraska is rural, mostly white and fiscally and socially conservative. It is similar both geographically and ideologically to its southern neighbor,Kansas. Western Nebraska, the Third Congressional District, is almost uniformly Republican. It is sparsely populated, with vast empty expanses broken by the occasional ranch or rail yard.
The eastern fifth of Nebraska, the First and Second districts, are more developed. More consistent rainfall allows for better farming. But the region is still lightly populated and heavily Republican. In presidential elections, Democrats are competitive in just a few areas: Lancaster County, which includes the state capital, Lincoln, and the main campus of the University of Nebraska; Thurston County, which is majority Native American but has only several thousand residents; and the Second District, anchored by Omaha.
Before the latest round of redistricting, the Second District included Omaha’s Douglas County and the eastern half of Sarpy County. The western half of Sarpy was part of the First District.
The geography is important. Both Douglas and Sarpy counties are more Democratic-leaning in the east, Mr. Landow said, transitioning from urban and suburban to exurban and rural as you travel from east to west. So when Nebraska Republicans redrew the district lines, they flipped Sarpy County around, moving the western half into the Second District and the eastern half into the First District. The First District is more Republican than the Second District, so it could safely absorb some Democratic voters.
“A lot of working-class Democrats in eastern Sarpy County were taken out of the Second District,” Mr. Landow said.
Omaha’s Democratic constituencies are substantial but not overwhelming. Douglas County is 12 percent black and 12 percent Hispanic. One of the main industries in the area is food processing, including meatpacking, which employs blue-collar, Democratic-leaning voters, Mr. Landow said.
But Omaha is also home to white-collar, more Republican-leaning industries; the city is a regional center for financial services, insurance and banking. And overall, the Second District was Republican-leaning in 2008, and is even more so in 2012.
“It’s the closest thing we have to a competitive region of the state,” Mr. Hibbing said, “but I still wouldn’t classify it as quite competitive because it is really hard for Democrats to do well there.”
The Bellwether: Dodge County
Dodge County, to the northwest of Omaha, has come within a couple percentage points of the statewide vote in the last three presidential elections. It is mostly rural and mostly Republican, like Nebraska as a whole. But Dodge County also includes a decent-sized town, Fremont, which has a small but growing university, Mr. Hibbing said.
The Bottom Line
Mr. Romney is a 100 percent favorite to carry four of Nebraska’s five electoral votes, according to the current FiveThirtyEight forecast. He should win the two statewide votes as well as the votes awarded to the winner of the First and Third congressional districts.
Republicans are likely to maintain their advantage in the Cornhusker State for the foreseeable future. Like Kansas, Nebraska has been moving to the ideological right over the last two decades. In addition, the state’s economy is in excellent shape, and its population is mostly stable, Mr. Hibbing said.
The only demographic change with the potential to help Democrats is an influx of Latinos, who have moved to Nebraska for jobs in agriculture and food processing. In 1990, the state’s Hispanic population was just 2 percent. Today, it is almost 10 percent. But, as in Kansas, the Latino population in Nebraska has yet to make an impact politically.
Mr. Obama is facing more headwinds in 2012 than he was in 2008 and would likely have had difficulty retaining Nebraska’s Second District even if it had not been redrawn. He carried it by just 3,370 votes in 2008.
In its new, more Republican-leaning shape, the Second District is an even tougher place for Mr. Obama to repeat his 2008 success. Mr. Romney is a 94 percent favorite there, according to the current forecast.
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 Nebraska.
Nebraska:
The most impressive victory of President Obama’s 2008 campaign may have also been the most minute: he won a single electoral vote by a single percentage point in Nebraska’s Second Congressional District. (Nebraska is one of two states, along with Maine, that awards electoral votes by Congressional district.)
Nebraska’s Second District was the reddest electoral vote Mr. Obama carried in 2008. It falls to the right of traditionally Republican states like North Carolina and Virginia onFiveThirtyEight’s Presidential Voting Indexand was the farthest Mr. Obama was able to penetrate into G.O.P. territory.
But after the election, Nebraska Republicans responded with a fairly simple strategy. They moved the Second District even farther behind the battlements, redrawing the district lines after the 2010 Census to make it more Republican and “avoid what they considered to be the debacle of losing the seat to Obama in 2008,” Mr. Landow said.
The Second District’s new boundaries make it more likely that all five of Nebraska’s electoral votes will go to Mitt Romney this year. As a whole, Nebraska is among the most conservative states. In the last half-century, only Utah has favored G.O.P. presidential candidates by consistently wider margins.
Nebraska is rural, mostly white and fiscally and socially conservative. It is similar both geographically and ideologically to its southern neighbor,Kansas. Western Nebraska, the Third Congressional District, is almost uniformly Republican. It is sparsely populated, with vast empty expanses broken by the occasional ranch or rail yard.
The eastern fifth of Nebraska, the First and Second districts, are more developed. More consistent rainfall allows for better farming. But the region is still lightly populated and heavily Republican. In presidential elections, Democrats are competitive in just a few areas: Lancaster County, which includes the state capital, Lincoln, and the main campus of the University of Nebraska; Thurston County, which is majority Native American but has only several thousand residents; and the Second District, anchored by Omaha.
Before the latest round of redistricting, the Second District included Omaha’s Douglas County and the eastern half of Sarpy County. The western half of Sarpy was part of the First District.
The geography is important. Both Douglas and Sarpy counties are more Democratic-leaning in the east, Mr. Landow said, transitioning from urban and suburban to exurban and rural as you travel from east to west. So when Nebraska Republicans redrew the district lines, they flipped Sarpy County around, moving the western half into the Second District and the eastern half into the First District. The First District is more Republican than the Second District, so it could safely absorb some Democratic voters.
“A lot of working-class Democrats in eastern Sarpy County were taken out of the Second District,” Mr. Landow said.
Omaha’s Democratic constituencies are substantial but not overwhelming. Douglas County is 12 percent black and 12 percent Hispanic. One of the main industries in the area is food processing, including meatpacking, which employs blue-collar, Democratic-leaning voters, Mr. Landow said.
But Omaha is also home to white-collar, more Republican-leaning industries; the city is a regional center for financial services, insurance and banking. And overall, the Second District was Republican-leaning in 2008, and is even more so in 2012.
“It’s the closest thing we have to a competitive region of the state,” Mr. Hibbing said, “but I still wouldn’t classify it as quite competitive because it is really hard for Democrats to do well there.”
The Bellwether: Dodge County
Dodge County, to the northwest of Omaha, has come within a couple percentage points of the statewide vote in the last three presidential elections. It is mostly rural and mostly Republican, like Nebraska as a whole. But Dodge County also includes a decent-sized town, Fremont, which has a small but growing university, Mr. Hibbing said.
The Bottom Line
Mr. Romney is a 100 percent favorite to carry four of Nebraska’s five electoral votes, according to the current FiveThirtyEight forecast. He should win the two statewide votes as well as the votes awarded to the winner of the First and Third congressional districts.
Republicans are likely to maintain their advantage in the Cornhusker State for the foreseeable future. Like Kansas, Nebraska has been moving to the ideological right over the last two decades. In addition, the state’s economy is in excellent shape, and its population is mostly stable, Mr. Hibbing said.
The only demographic change with the potential to help Democrats is an influx of Latinos, who have moved to Nebraska for jobs in agriculture and food processing. In 1990, the state’s Hispanic population was just 2 percent. Today, it is almost 10 percent. But, as in Kansas, the Latino population in Nebraska has yet to make an impact politically.
Mr. Obama is facing more headwinds in 2012 than he was in 2008 and would likely have had difficulty retaining Nebraska’s Second District even if it had not been redrawn. He carried it by just 3,370 votes in 2008.
In its new, more Republican-leaning shape, the Second District is an even tougher place for Mr. Obama to repeat his 2008 success. Mr. Romney is a 94 percent favorite there, according to the current forecast.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Presidential Geography: Kansas
The 2012 presidential election is a little more than 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 Kansas.
Kansas:
A long tradition of centrist Republicanism in Kansas — exemplified by politicians like former Senator Bob Dole and former Gov.Bill Graves — was dealt a near-fatal wound last month when a group of state senators, deemed insufficiently conservative, were defeated in Republican primaries.
Kansas had been a reliably conservative state for years, and Mitt Romney is all but guaranteed the state’s six electoral votes. But until recently, Kansans still preferred a government far from the ideological poles.
“A moderate coalition ran the state for 40 years,” Mr. Loomis said.
That era appears to be over. The primaries were the culmination of a gradual, two-decade drift to the political right in Kansas, but they also came after several years of faster-paced conservative ascension, as well-financed interest groups capitalized on a backlash against President Obama and his policies, local political analysts said.
Unless Democrats are able to pull off upsets in the November general elections, the victories of the less-centrist Republican candidates will clear the way for a more conservative vision of the state. Long-sought conservative legislation on issues including health care, the selection of judges and environmental regulations is expected to become law.
In 2010, the Tea Party movement that swept conservatives into power nationally helped Kansas conservatives to extend their influence. The state’s Democratic governor was replaced by a conservative Republican, Sam Brownback, and the G.O.P. expanded its majority in the State House of Representatives.
Only the Kansas State Senate retained significant centrist tendencies, and several of Mr. Brownback’s legislative goals were stymied by a coalition of Democratic and moderate Republican senators.
That conflict set up the recent “moderate” vs. “conservative” Republican primaries. And the conservatives, backed by Mr. Brownback and an avalanche of outside money, won. Americans for Prosperity, financed by the Wichita-based Koch brothers; the Kansas Chamber of Commerce, who also received a large Koch check; and other groups spent hundreds of thousands of dollars during the campaign.
But the rightward lurches last month and in 2010 were made possible by a longer term shift in the state’s political landscape. Over the past two decades, Kansas’ Republican Party has become more conservative, particularly in two of the state’s main population centers: Wichita’s Sedgwick County and the Kansas City suburbs in Johnson County.
In presidential elections, there are just two truly Democratic counties remaining in the state: Wyandotte County and Douglas County.
Wyandotte County is home to blue-collar Kansas City, Kan., sometimes abbreviated as K.C.K., a traditional Democratic city with large minority populations. Democrats are also dominant in Douglas County, home to the University of Kansas in Lawrence.
The rest of Kansas is heavily Republican. There are counties where Democrats keep the vote close, mostly the suburban counties around K.C.K. But in this case, close means a Republican margin of victory of around 10 percentage points. Republican voters in the fast-growing suburbs of Johnson County tend to be more conservative than the typical suburban Republican in other states.
And voters in Kansas tend to get more conservative as you travel away from the state’s population centers. The deeply religious farm counties in western Kansas are among the most conservative counties in the nation. In 2008, Senator John McCain, of Arizona, won more than 70 percent of the vote in most of them.
In the southwest, the flat land is dotted by dairy farms and slaughterhouses (Dodge City, Garden City and Liberal are known as the “Golden Triangle of meatpacking”). Meatpacking plants have attracted an influx of Latino workers, and in many rural schools a majority of students are Hispanic. But the state’s growing Latino community has yet to have an appreciable effect at the ballot box.
The Bellwether: Sedgwick County
Kansas’ rightward shift is perhaps best exemplified by Wichita’s Sedgewick County, where Democrats used to be a majority. Wichita, home to some of the biggest airplane manufacturers in the nation, is mostly Republican, partly because residents from more rural parts of the state have resettled there, Mr. Loomis said. It has transformed into a good political bellwether, coming within one percentage point of the statewide vote in the last three elections.
The Bottom Line
The shift to the right in Kansas is unlikely to be reversed in the near future, especially in presidential elections. Mr. Romney has a 100 percent chance of carrying the state, according to the current FiveThirtyEight forecast.
However, a moderate Republican or Democratic comeback on the state level is possible, the local analysts said, particularly if the new governing coalition overreaches. In addition, the state’s shift to the right was, at least in part, a reaction to Mr. Obama, who will be president for a finite amount of time (either 124 or 1,584 more days).
“Barack Obama tended to be the worst thing that ever happened to Democrats in states like Kansas,” Mr. Aistrup said, “because all of a sudden these moderate Republicans were mobilized and became much more conservative than I think they otherwise are.”
Outside interest groups like Americans for Prosperity were able to capitalize on those anti-Obama feelings, tying moderates to the administration. With the elimination of those moderate Republican senators, the more conservative wing of the Kansas G.O.P. will have a largely unobstructed path to implement its vision.
“You’re going to see durable conservative majority governing Kansas for the foreseeable future,” Mr. Kensinger said.
The New York Times and Micah Cohen have been taking a state by state look at each state throughout the the weeks leading up to Election Day . Next up is Kansas.
Kansas:
A long tradition of centrist Republicanism in Kansas — exemplified by politicians like former Senator Bob Dole and former Gov.Bill Graves — was dealt a near-fatal wound last month when a group of state senators, deemed insufficiently conservative, were defeated in Republican primaries.
Kansas had been a reliably conservative state for years, and Mitt Romney is all but guaranteed the state’s six electoral votes. But until recently, Kansans still preferred a government far from the ideological poles.
“A moderate coalition ran the state for 40 years,” Mr. Loomis said.
That era appears to be over. The primaries were the culmination of a gradual, two-decade drift to the political right in Kansas, but they also came after several years of faster-paced conservative ascension, as well-financed interest groups capitalized on a backlash against President Obama and his policies, local political analysts said.
Unless Democrats are able to pull off upsets in the November general elections, the victories of the less-centrist Republican candidates will clear the way for a more conservative vision of the state. Long-sought conservative legislation on issues including health care, the selection of judges and environmental regulations is expected to become law.
In 2010, the Tea Party movement that swept conservatives into power nationally helped Kansas conservatives to extend their influence. The state’s Democratic governor was replaced by a conservative Republican, Sam Brownback, and the G.O.P. expanded its majority in the State House of Representatives.
Only the Kansas State Senate retained significant centrist tendencies, and several of Mr. Brownback’s legislative goals were stymied by a coalition of Democratic and moderate Republican senators.
That conflict set up the recent “moderate” vs. “conservative” Republican primaries. And the conservatives, backed by Mr. Brownback and an avalanche of outside money, won. Americans for Prosperity, financed by the Wichita-based Koch brothers; the Kansas Chamber of Commerce, who also received a large Koch check; and other groups spent hundreds of thousands of dollars during the campaign.
But the rightward lurches last month and in 2010 were made possible by a longer term shift in the state’s political landscape. Over the past two decades, Kansas’ Republican Party has become more conservative, particularly in two of the state’s main population centers: Wichita’s Sedgwick County and the Kansas City suburbs in Johnson County.
In presidential elections, there are just two truly Democratic counties remaining in the state: Wyandotte County and Douglas County.
Wyandotte County is home to blue-collar Kansas City, Kan., sometimes abbreviated as K.C.K., a traditional Democratic city with large minority populations. Democrats are also dominant in Douglas County, home to the University of Kansas in Lawrence.
The rest of Kansas is heavily Republican. There are counties where Democrats keep the vote close, mostly the suburban counties around K.C.K. But in this case, close means a Republican margin of victory of around 10 percentage points. Republican voters in the fast-growing suburbs of Johnson County tend to be more conservative than the typical suburban Republican in other states.
And voters in Kansas tend to get more conservative as you travel away from the state’s population centers. The deeply religious farm counties in western Kansas are among the most conservative counties in the nation. In 2008, Senator John McCain, of Arizona, won more than 70 percent of the vote in most of them.
In the southwest, the flat land is dotted by dairy farms and slaughterhouses (Dodge City, Garden City and Liberal are known as the “Golden Triangle of meatpacking”). Meatpacking plants have attracted an influx of Latino workers, and in many rural schools a majority of students are Hispanic. But the state’s growing Latino community has yet to have an appreciable effect at the ballot box.
The Bellwether: Sedgwick County
Kansas’ rightward shift is perhaps best exemplified by Wichita’s Sedgewick County, where Democrats used to be a majority. Wichita, home to some of the biggest airplane manufacturers in the nation, is mostly Republican, partly because residents from more rural parts of the state have resettled there, Mr. Loomis said. It has transformed into a good political bellwether, coming within one percentage point of the statewide vote in the last three elections.
The Bottom Line
The shift to the right in Kansas is unlikely to be reversed in the near future, especially in presidential elections. Mr. Romney has a 100 percent chance of carrying the state, according to the current FiveThirtyEight forecast.
However, a moderate Republican or Democratic comeback on the state level is possible, the local analysts said, particularly if the new governing coalition overreaches. In addition, the state’s shift to the right was, at least in part, a reaction to Mr. Obama, who will be president for a finite amount of time (either 124 or 1,584 more days).
“Barack Obama tended to be the worst thing that ever happened to Democrats in states like Kansas,” Mr. Aistrup said, “because all of a sudden these moderate Republicans were mobilized and became much more conservative than I think they otherwise are.”
Outside interest groups like Americans for Prosperity were able to capitalize on those anti-Obama feelings, tying moderates to the administration. With the elimination of those moderate Republican senators, the more conservative wing of the Kansas G.O.P. will have a largely unobstructed path to implement its vision.
“You’re going to see durable conservative majority governing Kansas for the foreseeable future,” Mr. Kensinger said.
Monday, September 17, 2012
Presidential Geography: Connecticut
The 2012 presidential election is a little more than 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 Connecticut.
Connecticut:
Connecticut is in the top-tier of safely Democratic states. Every statewide elective office is held by Democrats, as is the State Senate and State House. Democratic presidential candidates have won Connecticut in every election since 1992, and often by wide margins. President Obama carried the state by 22 percentage points in 2008.
But the most recent poll conducted in Connecticut — in late August by Quinnipiac University — found a surprising result: Mr. Obama led Mitt Romney by just 7 percentage points, 52 percent to 45 percent.
Mr. Obama’s lead in that poll, while on the low end of what pollsters have found in Connecticut this year, was not an outlier. FiveThirtyEight’s current polling average in the state has Mr. Obama up by 9.4 percentage points.
The current evidence suggests that, while far from a battleground state, Connecticut has soured on Mr. Obama to a greater extent than the nation as a whole since 2008. Mr. Obama’s disproportionate decline there may prove exaggerated, or even completely illusory, but there are reasons to believe it is real.
First, the Connecticut economy has been struggling for a long time. Second, Connecticut has a unique bloc of affluent, Wall Street-connected voters with whom Mr. Romney may hold special appeal. And third, the state’s race for the United States Senate has become competitive.
Like elsewhere in the Northeast, Connecticut was a swing state in presidential elections through most of the 20th century. Its blue-collar and heavily Roman Catholic cities and suburbs voted Democratic. Republicans won support from the suburbs that were wealthy and mostly Protestant and from the predominantly Protestant rural areas that were less well-off. Those voting patterns have largely reversed themselves, Mr. Schurin said.
Connecticut Republicans were defined by their moderation, best exemplified by middle-of-road governors like John G. Rowland and Jodi Rell and a Republican-turned-independent, Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, who took office in 2011, was the state’s first Democratic governor in 20 years.
As social conservatives gained more power in the Republican Party nationally, moderate Connecticut voters — like those in New Jersey and Delaware — began favoring Democratic candidates.
The trend has been especially evident in southwest Connecticut. Fairfield County, one of the wealthiest in the nation, is dotted by Wall Street bedroom communities, like Stamford and Greenwich, where affluent voters work for hedge funds, private equity shops and banks. These wealthy suburban communities, once a bastion of Republican support, have been trending Democratic, Mr. Bass said. Mr. Obama carried Fairfield County in 2008 by 18 percentage points.
But if Fairfield County has seen the most Democratic gains over the last two decades, it may also be where Mr. Romney might be able to make up the most ground. Many Wall Street executives appear to have lost their fondness for Mr. Obama, and Mr. Romney — who co-founded the financial services firm Bain Capital — may be well positioned to win their votes.
“There’s a lot of people in Fairfield County like Romney,” Mr. Rose said. “They even look like Romney.”
It is possible that Mr. Romney could carry Fairfield County this year, Mr. Rose said. That would be enough to put a substantial dent in Mr. Obama’s margin — a quarter of votes in 2008 were cast in Fairfield — but it would not be enough to put the state in play. There simply are not enough Republican-leaning voters in the rest of the state.
Of Connecticut’s eight counties, Litchfield is the most Republican. It has pockets of Fairfield-like wealth and includes parts of the blue-collar and Republican-leaning Naugatuck River Valley. But after Litchfield, the pickings are slim for Republican candidates.
Eastern Connecticut is more sparsely populated but still leans Democratic. The rural northeast, known as the Quiet Corner, is a little more politically competitive than the southeast, where the defense industry is prominent.
And in Hartford and New Haven Counties — which with Fairfield County are among the three most populous — there is virtually no Republican Party presence, Mr. Rennie said. Hartford and New Haven are both overwhelmingly Democratic, with large African-American and Hispanic populations.
The Bellwether: New Haven County
New Haven County has matched the statewide vote in the last two presidential elections. The city of New Haven, home to Yale University, and Waterbury, which also leans Democratic, account for most of the votes cast, but the county also includes more rural and Republican-leaning parts of the Naugatuck Valley.
The New Haven area, historically a manufacturing center, has recently found new economic life in the biomedical and technology fields. But like the state as a whole, New Haven County has pockets of extreme poverty and extreme wealth.
The Bottom Line
Mr. Obama is a 99 percent favorite in Connecticut, according to the current FiveThirtyEight forecast. While the presidential race has not received much attention in Connecticut, it may affect — or be affected by — the state’s Senate race, which has become unexpectedly interesting.
Linda E. McMahon, the Republican nominee, and Representative Christopher S. Murphy, the Democratic candidate, are battling to replace Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, an independent who is retiring. If Mr. Obama carries Connecticut by a wide enough margin, his coattails may help Mr. Murphy overcome Ms. McMahon’s significant spending advantage.
Conversely, Ms. McMahon’s money has led to a mostly one-sided advertisement war, which may be another reason that Mr. Romney is staying relatively close in the Connecticut polls. The state’s unemployment rate recently moved above the national average, and Ms. McMahon has saturated the state with ads highlighting the state’s struggling economy. That may be indirectly hurting Mr. Obama, Mr. Rose said.
“She’s almost like Romney’s surrogate,” he said.
Still, Mr. Romney has little chance of winning Connecticut’s seven electoral votes. The best he can probably hope for is carrying Fairfield County and keeping Mr. Obama’s statewide margin of victory in the low double digits or high single digits.
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 Connecticut.
Connecticut:
Connecticut is in the top-tier of safely Democratic states. Every statewide elective office is held by Democrats, as is the State Senate and State House. Democratic presidential candidates have won Connecticut in every election since 1992, and often by wide margins. President Obama carried the state by 22 percentage points in 2008.
But the most recent poll conducted in Connecticut — in late August by Quinnipiac University — found a surprising result: Mr. Obama led Mitt Romney by just 7 percentage points, 52 percent to 45 percent.
Mr. Obama’s lead in that poll, while on the low end of what pollsters have found in Connecticut this year, was not an outlier. FiveThirtyEight’s current polling average in the state has Mr. Obama up by 9.4 percentage points.
The current evidence suggests that, while far from a battleground state, Connecticut has soured on Mr. Obama to a greater extent than the nation as a whole since 2008. Mr. Obama’s disproportionate decline there may prove exaggerated, or even completely illusory, but there are reasons to believe it is real.
First, the Connecticut economy has been struggling for a long time. Second, Connecticut has a unique bloc of affluent, Wall Street-connected voters with whom Mr. Romney may hold special appeal. And third, the state’s race for the United States Senate has become competitive.
Like elsewhere in the Northeast, Connecticut was a swing state in presidential elections through most of the 20th century. Its blue-collar and heavily Roman Catholic cities and suburbs voted Democratic. Republicans won support from the suburbs that were wealthy and mostly Protestant and from the predominantly Protestant rural areas that were less well-off. Those voting patterns have largely reversed themselves, Mr. Schurin said.
Connecticut Republicans were defined by their moderation, best exemplified by middle-of-road governors like John G. Rowland and Jodi Rell and a Republican-turned-independent, Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, who took office in 2011, was the state’s first Democratic governor in 20 years.
As social conservatives gained more power in the Republican Party nationally, moderate Connecticut voters — like those in New Jersey and Delaware — began favoring Democratic candidates.
The trend has been especially evident in southwest Connecticut. Fairfield County, one of the wealthiest in the nation, is dotted by Wall Street bedroom communities, like Stamford and Greenwich, where affluent voters work for hedge funds, private equity shops and banks. These wealthy suburban communities, once a bastion of Republican support, have been trending Democratic, Mr. Bass said. Mr. Obama carried Fairfield County in 2008 by 18 percentage points.
But if Fairfield County has seen the most Democratic gains over the last two decades, it may also be where Mr. Romney might be able to make up the most ground. Many Wall Street executives appear to have lost their fondness for Mr. Obama, and Mr. Romney — who co-founded the financial services firm Bain Capital — may be well positioned to win their votes.
“There’s a lot of people in Fairfield County like Romney,” Mr. Rose said. “They even look like Romney.”
It is possible that Mr. Romney could carry Fairfield County this year, Mr. Rose said. That would be enough to put a substantial dent in Mr. Obama’s margin — a quarter of votes in 2008 were cast in Fairfield — but it would not be enough to put the state in play. There simply are not enough Republican-leaning voters in the rest of the state.
Of Connecticut’s eight counties, Litchfield is the most Republican. It has pockets of Fairfield-like wealth and includes parts of the blue-collar and Republican-leaning Naugatuck River Valley. But after Litchfield, the pickings are slim for Republican candidates.
Eastern Connecticut is more sparsely populated but still leans Democratic. The rural northeast, known as the Quiet Corner, is a little more politically competitive than the southeast, where the defense industry is prominent.
And in Hartford and New Haven Counties — which with Fairfield County are among the three most populous — there is virtually no Republican Party presence, Mr. Rennie said. Hartford and New Haven are both overwhelmingly Democratic, with large African-American and Hispanic populations.
The Bellwether: New Haven County
New Haven County has matched the statewide vote in the last two presidential elections. The city of New Haven, home to Yale University, and Waterbury, which also leans Democratic, account for most of the votes cast, but the county also includes more rural and Republican-leaning parts of the Naugatuck Valley.
The New Haven area, historically a manufacturing center, has recently found new economic life in the biomedical and technology fields. But like the state as a whole, New Haven County has pockets of extreme poverty and extreme wealth.
The Bottom Line
Mr. Obama is a 99 percent favorite in Connecticut, according to the current FiveThirtyEight forecast. While the presidential race has not received much attention in Connecticut, it may affect — or be affected by — the state’s Senate race, which has become unexpectedly interesting.
Linda E. McMahon, the Republican nominee, and Representative Christopher S. Murphy, the Democratic candidate, are battling to replace Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, an independent who is retiring. If Mr. Obama carries Connecticut by a wide enough margin, his coattails may help Mr. Murphy overcome Ms. McMahon’s significant spending advantage.
Conversely, Ms. McMahon’s money has led to a mostly one-sided advertisement war, which may be another reason that Mr. Romney is staying relatively close in the Connecticut polls. The state’s unemployment rate recently moved above the national average, and Ms. McMahon has saturated the state with ads highlighting the state’s struggling economy. That may be indirectly hurting Mr. Obama, Mr. Rose said.
“She’s almost like Romney’s surrogate,” he said.
Still, Mr. Romney has little chance of winning Connecticut’s seven electoral votes. The best he can probably hope for is carrying Fairfield County and keeping Mr. Obama’s statewide margin of victory in the low double digits or high single digits.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Presidential Georgraphy: Arkansas
The 2012 presidential election is about 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 Arkansas.
Arkansas:
The high point of last week’s Democratic National Convention was, by mostaccounts, the energetic address given by Bill Clinton, the former two-term president and governor of Arkansas. Mr. Clinton can still deliver a rousing speech, but the electoral landscape has changed considerably since he was last on the ballot, perhaps nowhere more so than in his home state.
In the 12 years since Mr. Clinton’s run for re-election in 1996 to President Obama’s run for office in 2008, Arkansas has experienced the largest drop in Democratic support — a whopping 37 percentage points. Part of that is explained by Arkansas being Mr. Clinton’s home state. Race may have also played a role, and perhaps some of the decline stems from hometown unhappiness that Mr. Obama had ousted the former first lady of Arkansas, Hillary Rodham Clinton, in the Democratic primaries.
But much of Arkansas’s change of heart is explained by the same trend evident in otherSouthern states: the exodus of Southern whites from the Democratic Party, particularly working-class whites in rural areas.
This exodus has been extensive in Arkansas, one of the most rural, most religious, least-educated and poorest states in the nation.
But there is a catch: Democratic losses have so far mostly been limited to presidential elections. While other Southern states have gone from Democratic to Republican control, Arkansas remains one of the few states —West Virginia is another — where voters still split tickets. And Democrats still control the governor’s mansion, the State Senate and the state House of Representatives.
For years, analysts have predicted that the state’s Republican-preferences at the presidential level would trickle into state-level races. But Arkansas is a small state where years of one-party rule trained people to focus on personality, Mr. Barth said. And personality has helped the Democrats keep the Republican tide from rolling in.
A series of immensely popular Democratic politicians — Mr. Clinton, Dale Bumpers and David Pryor — helped to delay a Republican takeover of the state, both Ms. Parry and Mr. Barth said.
But it may finally be getting less palatable to many Arkansas voters. The Republicans made significant gains in 2010, cutting the Democratic advantage in the Senate from 19 seats to 5, and in the House, from 44 seats to 11.
Arkansas’s political geography is hard to sort out because voter preferences are so dependent on the particular contest. For example, Senator John McCain, the Republican nominee in 2008, won 66 of Arkansas’s 75 counties in the presidential election. But the same year, the Senator Mark Pryor, an Arkansas Democrat, won all 75 counties in his re-election bid. In 2010, Republicans made gains nationally and in Arkansas where Senator Blanche Lincoln, a Democrat, was beaten handily in her bid for re-election, but Mike Beebe, Arkansas’s Democratic governor, swept every county in the state.
In presidential elections, most Democratic voters in Arkansas are found in Little Rock. The state capital is more than 40 percent African-American and is home to well-off, well-educated white voters, Ms. Parry said. The other consistent source of Democratic presidential votes is the Arkansas Delta, a string of rural, predominately African-American counties in the east running along the Mississippi River. These counties, however, have been losing population.
Northwest Arkansas (excluding the liberal university town of Fayetteville) is the most heavily Republican region in the state. The northwest — particularly Benton and Washington counties — has emerged to rival the Little Rock area as the economic engine of the state. Giant companies like Walmart, Tyson Foods and J.B. Hunt are headquartered in the area and have helped fuel the northwest’s booming economy.
Those jobs have attracted business-oriented, anti-tax conservatives, Mr. Barth said. Those newcomers, along with an influx of retirees, have joined social conservatives already in the area.
In addition to the northwest, the ring of suburbs around Little Rock — in Faulkner, White, Saline and Lonoke counties — is also overwhelmingly conservative. And both the suburbs in Central Arkansas along with Washington and Benton counties in the northwest have been fast-growing regions, pushing the state toward the Republican Party.
The rest of Arkansas is rural, overwhelmingly white and culturally conservative. But these counties are also relatively poor and “are more progressive on economic issues,” Mr. Barth said. Given the right candidate, they will still vote Democratic in state-level races.
The Bellwether: Garland County
Hot Springs in Garland County, where Mr. Clinton grew up, has been a close barometer of the statewide vote in the last three presidential elections. Many of the state’s characteristics are evident in Garland County. It has a substantial African-American population, although not as high as Little Rock and the delta. And Hot Springs has attracted retirees, just like the northwest. Garland County is not a perfect microcosm of the state, Mr. Barth said, but it is close.
The Bottom Line
Mr. Romney is a 100 percent favorite in Arkansas, according to the current FiveThirtyEight forecast. And for the foreseeable future, Republican presidential candidates will likely be able to count on carrying the state.
The bigger question is how long Arkansas’s split personality — Republican for president, largely Democratic at the state-level — can hold. Mr. Beebe, a Democrat, is still popular in the state, but “the conventional wisdom in Arkansas is that there aren’t that many Beebe’s left,” Ms. Parry said.
“The tide is clearly in one direction,” Mr. Barth added.
There may still be enough residual affinity for the Democratic Party in Arkansas that if the right presidential candidate came along at the right time, the state could be in play (in 2008, Mrs. Clinton was polling ahead of Mr. McCain in Arkansas).
But in the near future, Mr. Barth said, Arkansas may have moved beyond the reach of any Democrat — even a Clinton.
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 Arkansas.
Arkansas:
The high point of last week’s Democratic National Convention was, by mostaccounts, the energetic address given by Bill Clinton, the former two-term president and governor of Arkansas. Mr. Clinton can still deliver a rousing speech, but the electoral landscape has changed considerably since he was last on the ballot, perhaps nowhere more so than in his home state.
In the 12 years since Mr. Clinton’s run for re-election in 1996 to President Obama’s run for office in 2008, Arkansas has experienced the largest drop in Democratic support — a whopping 37 percentage points. Part of that is explained by Arkansas being Mr. Clinton’s home state. Race may have also played a role, and perhaps some of the decline stems from hometown unhappiness that Mr. Obama had ousted the former first lady of Arkansas, Hillary Rodham Clinton, in the Democratic primaries.
But much of Arkansas’s change of heart is explained by the same trend evident in otherSouthern states: the exodus of Southern whites from the Democratic Party, particularly working-class whites in rural areas.
This exodus has been extensive in Arkansas, one of the most rural, most religious, least-educated and poorest states in the nation.
But there is a catch: Democratic losses have so far mostly been limited to presidential elections. While other Southern states have gone from Democratic to Republican control, Arkansas remains one of the few states —West Virginia is another — where voters still split tickets. And Democrats still control the governor’s mansion, the State Senate and the state House of Representatives.
For years, analysts have predicted that the state’s Republican-preferences at the presidential level would trickle into state-level races. But Arkansas is a small state where years of one-party rule trained people to focus on personality, Mr. Barth said. And personality has helped the Democrats keep the Republican tide from rolling in.
A series of immensely popular Democratic politicians — Mr. Clinton, Dale Bumpers and David Pryor — helped to delay a Republican takeover of the state, both Ms. Parry and Mr. Barth said.
But it may finally be getting less palatable to many Arkansas voters. The Republicans made significant gains in 2010, cutting the Democratic advantage in the Senate from 19 seats to 5, and in the House, from 44 seats to 11.
Arkansas’s political geography is hard to sort out because voter preferences are so dependent on the particular contest. For example, Senator John McCain, the Republican nominee in 2008, won 66 of Arkansas’s 75 counties in the presidential election. But the same year, the Senator Mark Pryor, an Arkansas Democrat, won all 75 counties in his re-election bid. In 2010, Republicans made gains nationally and in Arkansas where Senator Blanche Lincoln, a Democrat, was beaten handily in her bid for re-election, but Mike Beebe, Arkansas’s Democratic governor, swept every county in the state.
In presidential elections, most Democratic voters in Arkansas are found in Little Rock. The state capital is more than 40 percent African-American and is home to well-off, well-educated white voters, Ms. Parry said. The other consistent source of Democratic presidential votes is the Arkansas Delta, a string of rural, predominately African-American counties in the east running along the Mississippi River. These counties, however, have been losing population.
Northwest Arkansas (excluding the liberal university town of Fayetteville) is the most heavily Republican region in the state. The northwest — particularly Benton and Washington counties — has emerged to rival the Little Rock area as the economic engine of the state. Giant companies like Walmart, Tyson Foods and J.B. Hunt are headquartered in the area and have helped fuel the northwest’s booming economy.
Those jobs have attracted business-oriented, anti-tax conservatives, Mr. Barth said. Those newcomers, along with an influx of retirees, have joined social conservatives already in the area.
In addition to the northwest, the ring of suburbs around Little Rock — in Faulkner, White, Saline and Lonoke counties — is also overwhelmingly conservative. And both the suburbs in Central Arkansas along with Washington and Benton counties in the northwest have been fast-growing regions, pushing the state toward the Republican Party.
The rest of Arkansas is rural, overwhelmingly white and culturally conservative. But these counties are also relatively poor and “are more progressive on economic issues,” Mr. Barth said. Given the right candidate, they will still vote Democratic in state-level races.
The Bellwether: Garland County
Hot Springs in Garland County, where Mr. Clinton grew up, has been a close barometer of the statewide vote in the last three presidential elections. Many of the state’s characteristics are evident in Garland County. It has a substantial African-American population, although not as high as Little Rock and the delta. And Hot Springs has attracted retirees, just like the northwest. Garland County is not a perfect microcosm of the state, Mr. Barth said, but it is close.
The Bottom Line
Mr. Romney is a 100 percent favorite in Arkansas, according to the current FiveThirtyEight forecast. And for the foreseeable future, Republican presidential candidates will likely be able to count on carrying the state.
The bigger question is how long Arkansas’s split personality — Republican for president, largely Democratic at the state-level — can hold. Mr. Beebe, a Democrat, is still popular in the state, but “the conventional wisdom in Arkansas is that there aren’t that many Beebe’s left,” Ms. Parry said.
“The tide is clearly in one direction,” Mr. Barth added.
There may still be enough residual affinity for the Democratic Party in Arkansas that if the right presidential candidate came along at the right time, the state could be in play (in 2008, Mrs. Clinton was polling ahead of Mr. McCain in Arkansas).
But in the near future, Mr. Barth said, Arkansas may have moved beyond the reach of any Democrat — even a Clinton.
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Presidential Geography: Texas
The 2012 presidential election is about 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 Texas.
Texas:
“It’s only a matter of time.”
For more than a decade, that thought has provided solace to the out-of-power Democrats who dream of turning Texas blue, much like it was before Ronald Reagan won the state in 1980. The appeal for Democrats is obvious. If President Obama, for example, were somehow able to carry Texas and its 38 electoral votes, the electoral math would become very difficult for Mitt Romney.
A Democratic-leaning Texas may seem like a dream, but for years such a shift has appeared almost inevitable. The Hispanic population in Texas (38 percent) is the second largest in the nation, and it is growing quickly. The African-American population (12 percent) has kept pace with the state’s overall growth. And non-Hispanic whites have been shrinking as a share of the population.
In fact, sometime after 2000, non-Hispanic whites became a minority in the state. They now make up just 45 percent of the population, making Texas the only majority minority state that reliably votes Republican.
Yet, for all the talk of a politically competitive state, the Republican grip on Texas has never loosened.
“We’ve had this discussion for 10 years now, and nothing has changed,” Mr. Miller said.
“There’s been a ‘Waiting for Godot’ nature in terms of Democrats and Latinos here,” Mr. Henson said.
All 29 statewide elective offices are held by Republicans, and Texas Democrats have been left with a series of if-onlys. If only the local party were better organized. If only national Democrats invested more money in the state. If only we could get a charismatic Hispanic candidate on the ballot. And, the most fundamental “if only” of them all: if only Hispanic turnout were stronger.
Poor turnout has dulled the impact of the state’s Hispanic population at the ballot box. Hispanics may make up 38 percent of the population, but they have never exceeded 20 percent of the electorate in presidential elections, according to exit polls.
“Latino turnout is even lower here than it is in a lot of other places,” Mr. Henson said.
Hispanic turnout is creeping up incrementally, but the non-Hispanic white vote in Texas has become overwhelmingly Republican.
The political landscape in Texas is relatively straightforward. The Democratic strongholds are limited to the major cities — Austin, El Paso, Dallas and to a lesser extent Houston and San Antonio — and the heavily Hispanic Rio Grande Valley.
Republicans are dominant everywhere else, from suburbs to small towns to ranches and farms.
Each of the main cities has a different feel and contributes something unique to the state’s economy. Houston is a center for health care and energy jobs. Austin, the capital, has a flourishing music scene and is a major center for technology start-ups. Dallas has a large African-American community (25 percent) and a little bit of everything economically.
Outside of the cities, Texas has several distinct regions. East Texas is much like northern Louisiana. It is mostly rural, religious and conservative. The Panhandle is also deeply conservative, but feels more like the Great Plains, Mr. Henson said, and includes a streak of libertarianism.
West Central Texas around Midland and Odessa is the chief oil-producing region. Over all, Texas is among the nation’s top energy-producing states, particularly in oil, natural gas and wind. The state’s booming energy industries have helped its economy weather the Great Recession relatively well.
The Bellwether: Tarrant County
The Dallas-Fort Worth area is home to over six million people, and the two cities are often grouped together. But Tarrant County, which is home to Fort Worth, and Dallas County have separate identities. Dallas is more diverse than Fort Worth, a former cattle town that now revolves around industries like defense.
Non-Hispanic whites are still a slim majority in Tarrant County, which helps make it a much better statewide bellwether than Dallas County. Tarrant County exactly matched the statewide vote in 2008, and was just 1 percentage point more Republican in both 2004 and 2000.
The Bottom Line
There is little doubt that Mr. Romney will carry Texas. He is a 99 percent favorite in the state, according to the current FiveThirtyEight forecast.
But the long-term trend seems equally clear. Despite poor turnout, the Hispanic share of the electorate has steadily climbed, from 7 percent in 1984 to 20 percent in 2008, according to exit polls.
At the same time, the non-Hispanic white vote has consistently fallen. In 1984 it was 78 percent; by 2008 it was 63 percent.
The larger question is not if Texas will become more competitive, but when, both Mr. Henson and Mr. Miller said. And that largely depends on whether Democrats can improve turnout among Hispanics. They have a few things working against them.
First, the Texas Democratic Party has been out of power for a long time, with few elections to truly contest. “The party in the state has really atrophied,” Mr. Henson said.
Second, Hispanic culture in Texas has so far not placed a high value on participating in the electoral process, Mr. Miller said.
Even if Texas Hispanics do start punching their weight, the Republicans could make efforts to win their support. Partisan allegiances among Hispanics could become more balanced.
Those obstacles notwithstanding, there is no doubt that as the minority population in Texas has grown, so too has the potential for the state to become less firmly Republican. And there are already signs of a possible future: Mayor Julián Castro of San Antonio, a rising star in Democratic politics, gave the keynote address at the national convention in Charlotte, N.C.
But that Democratic comeback — whether led by Mr. Castro or someone else — may still be years away. In the meantime, Democrats will have to continue to wait.
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 Texas.
Texas:
“It’s only a matter of time.”
For more than a decade, that thought has provided solace to the out-of-power Democrats who dream of turning Texas blue, much like it was before Ronald Reagan won the state in 1980. The appeal for Democrats is obvious. If President Obama, for example, were somehow able to carry Texas and its 38 electoral votes, the electoral math would become very difficult for Mitt Romney.
A Democratic-leaning Texas may seem like a dream, but for years such a shift has appeared almost inevitable. The Hispanic population in Texas (38 percent) is the second largest in the nation, and it is growing quickly. The African-American population (12 percent) has kept pace with the state’s overall growth. And non-Hispanic whites have been shrinking as a share of the population.
In fact, sometime after 2000, non-Hispanic whites became a minority in the state. They now make up just 45 percent of the population, making Texas the only majority minority state that reliably votes Republican.
Yet, for all the talk of a politically competitive state, the Republican grip on Texas has never loosened.
“We’ve had this discussion for 10 years now, and nothing has changed,” Mr. Miller said.
“There’s been a ‘Waiting for Godot’ nature in terms of Democrats and Latinos here,” Mr. Henson said.
All 29 statewide elective offices are held by Republicans, and Texas Democrats have been left with a series of if-onlys. If only the local party were better organized. If only national Democrats invested more money in the state. If only we could get a charismatic Hispanic candidate on the ballot. And, the most fundamental “if only” of them all: if only Hispanic turnout were stronger.
Poor turnout has dulled the impact of the state’s Hispanic population at the ballot box. Hispanics may make up 38 percent of the population, but they have never exceeded 20 percent of the electorate in presidential elections, according to exit polls.
“Latino turnout is even lower here than it is in a lot of other places,” Mr. Henson said.
Hispanic turnout is creeping up incrementally, but the non-Hispanic white vote in Texas has become overwhelmingly Republican.
The political landscape in Texas is relatively straightforward. The Democratic strongholds are limited to the major cities — Austin, El Paso, Dallas and to a lesser extent Houston and San Antonio — and the heavily Hispanic Rio Grande Valley.
Republicans are dominant everywhere else, from suburbs to small towns to ranches and farms.
Each of the main cities has a different feel and contributes something unique to the state’s economy. Houston is a center for health care and energy jobs. Austin, the capital, has a flourishing music scene and is a major center for technology start-ups. Dallas has a large African-American community (25 percent) and a little bit of everything economically.
Outside of the cities, Texas has several distinct regions. East Texas is much like northern Louisiana. It is mostly rural, religious and conservative. The Panhandle is also deeply conservative, but feels more like the Great Plains, Mr. Henson said, and includes a streak of libertarianism.
West Central Texas around Midland and Odessa is the chief oil-producing region. Over all, Texas is among the nation’s top energy-producing states, particularly in oil, natural gas and wind. The state’s booming energy industries have helped its economy weather the Great Recession relatively well.
The Bellwether: Tarrant County
The Dallas-Fort Worth area is home to over six million people, and the two cities are often grouped together. But Tarrant County, which is home to Fort Worth, and Dallas County have separate identities. Dallas is more diverse than Fort Worth, a former cattle town that now revolves around industries like defense.
Non-Hispanic whites are still a slim majority in Tarrant County, which helps make it a much better statewide bellwether than Dallas County. Tarrant County exactly matched the statewide vote in 2008, and was just 1 percentage point more Republican in both 2004 and 2000.
The Bottom Line
There is little doubt that Mr. Romney will carry Texas. He is a 99 percent favorite in the state, according to the current FiveThirtyEight forecast.
But the long-term trend seems equally clear. Despite poor turnout, the Hispanic share of the electorate has steadily climbed, from 7 percent in 1984 to 20 percent in 2008, according to exit polls.
At the same time, the non-Hispanic white vote has consistently fallen. In 1984 it was 78 percent; by 2008 it was 63 percent.
The larger question is not if Texas will become more competitive, but when, both Mr. Henson and Mr. Miller said. And that largely depends on whether Democrats can improve turnout among Hispanics. They have a few things working against them.
First, the Texas Democratic Party has been out of power for a long time, with few elections to truly contest. “The party in the state has really atrophied,” Mr. Henson said.
Second, Hispanic culture in Texas has so far not placed a high value on participating in the electoral process, Mr. Miller said.
Even if Texas Hispanics do start punching their weight, the Republicans could make efforts to win their support. Partisan allegiances among Hispanics could become more balanced.
Those obstacles notwithstanding, there is no doubt that as the minority population in Texas has grown, so too has the potential for the state to become less firmly Republican. And there are already signs of a possible future: Mayor Julián Castro of San Antonio, a rising star in Democratic politics, gave the keynote address at the national convention in Charlotte, N.C.
But that Democratic comeback — whether led by Mr. Castro or someone else — may still be years away. In the meantime, Democrats will have to continue to wait.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
College Football Week 2 Preview
Week 1 is in the books and not much is different. We know how good some teams are and how some might have bumpy years. Alabama proved their dominance out the gate with an impressive win against Michigan in the marquee match of the week. The first big game (South Carolina at Vanderbilt) got some people talking with a questionable call (or missed call for that matter). Ohio State will have one of those challenging years, but it will be for things off the field as they rolled nearly as impressively as Alabama, USC, and Notre Dame. Penn State, however, has a long year ahead of them both on and off the field and that started early with a crushing loss at home.
Turning to my "fab 5" of the week, Notre Dame looked even better than I imagined and they might be about to return to some of the more recent glory as a next step. The excitement of week 1was truly capped by Virginia Tech come from behind victory by tying the game at the end of regulation, getting a huge interception in overtime, and cashing in a field goal to steal one from Georgia Tech. Down in Georgia, Clemson outlasted, outwitted, and outplayed (as Survivor goes) Auburn for a second year in a row in the "Tigers Bowl". The game had a lot of great elements. And speaking of drama and late 4th quarter plays mixed with domination, Michigan State's win over Boise State had a little of it all. Boise State looked like they were about to continue their major win streak on opening weekend, but Michigan State LeVon Bell ran for over 200 yards and sealed the deal late setting up a go ahead touchdown for the Spartans. Completing the five was Alabama going up early on Michigan and not looking back. Michigan has improved under QB Denaard Robinson, but they are clearly not on the Tide's level. With those games, I managed a clean sweep going 5-5 out the gate. That type of accuracy will not be easy to keep up week to week as the crazy pace of the season will certainly pick up.
Now onto Week 2.
Games to highlight in Week 2:
Penn State at Virginia: How does the Nittany Lions respond after last week...on the road?
Purdue at No.23 Notre Dame: Can Notre Dame continue what they did in Ireland against Navy? Purdue could reveal if Notre Dame will be barely above .500 or potentially challenge for 10 wins.
South Florida at Nevada: Nevada won one of my highlight games last week over California and I think this one could be even closer with some unpredictable plays and action.
Savannah State at No.5 Florida State: This will be a blowout. Main interest: Can Florida State outscore Oklahoma State against Savannah State. The bar is set at 84. And go.
Turning to my "fab 5" of the week, Notre Dame looked even better than I imagined and they might be about to return to some of the more recent glory as a next step. The excitement of week 1was truly capped by Virginia Tech come from behind victory by tying the game at the end of regulation, getting a huge interception in overtime, and cashing in a field goal to steal one from Georgia Tech. Down in Georgia, Clemson outlasted, outwitted, and outplayed (as Survivor goes) Auburn for a second year in a row in the "Tigers Bowl". The game had a lot of great elements. And speaking of drama and late 4th quarter plays mixed with domination, Michigan State's win over Boise State had a little of it all. Boise State looked like they were about to continue their major win streak on opening weekend, but Michigan State LeVon Bell ran for over 200 yards and sealed the deal late setting up a go ahead touchdown for the Spartans. Completing the five was Alabama going up early on Michigan and not looking back. Michigan has improved under QB Denaard Robinson, but they are clearly not on the Tide's level. With those games, I managed a clean sweep going 5-5 out the gate. That type of accuracy will not be easy to keep up week to week as the crazy pace of the season will certainly pick up.
Now onto Week 2.
Games to highlight in Week 2:
Penn State at Virginia: How does the Nittany Lions respond after last week...on the road?
Purdue at No.23 Notre Dame: Can Notre Dame continue what they did in Ireland against Navy? Purdue could reveal if Notre Dame will be barely above .500 or potentially challenge for 10 wins.
South Florida at Nevada: Nevada won one of my highlight games last week over California and I think this one could be even closer with some unpredictable plays and action.
Savannah State at No.5 Florida State: This will be a blowout. Main interest: Can Florida State outscore Oklahoma State against Savannah State. The bar is set at 84. And go.
Top 5 Games of Week 2:
#5 No.16 Nebraska at UCLA: A week ago, I might have overlooked this game. But, UCLA looked very good to start the year and this game could see just how good they are. Nebraska has something to prove as well as most the attention in the Big Ten centers around Michigan, Michigan State, and Wisconsin on the field and Ohio State with their potential preparation for dominance in a couple years. PICK: NEBRASKA
#4 Miami (FL) at No.20 Kansas State: If this were ten years ago, Miami (FL) would likely to be largely favored. The last few years have been trying for the Hurricanes. They look like they are about to return to glory to fall short. This game could help them prepare for big challenges with Virginia Tech and Florida State. Kansas State has risen to a top 25 type of team and would love to position themselves in the Big 12 shuffle near the top. Once the energy lowers a bit, the game will slow down and the Wildcats start to pick apart some holes. PICK: KANSAS STATE
#3 Washington at No.2 LSU: Washington was 0-12 not too long ago. Now they are looking to take the next step to potentially be the best team in the Pac-12 after USC and Oregon. A game against LSU could assist them getting there. LSU lost a big piece in one of their starting linemen, but they should be fine for this one. LSU could get out early and start to take the energy out of the Huskies. Homefield advantage will be at its best here. PICK: LSU
#2 No.25 Florida at Texas A&M: The "highlight game" of the week by many is Texas A&M's first SEC game as they host the Florida Gators. The Gators are far from perfect and the Aggies have had a couple good years recently. The 12th man will be rocking for this one and they will be looking to assist the team get in the heads of Florida. The second half will truly tell this story. A couple big plays in the fourth quarter opens it up a bit. PICK: FLORIDA
#1 No.7 Georgia at Missouri: Like Texas A&M, Missouri is also making its SEC debut. They have been a bit better overall recently and might have a better chance to drop their foe, Georgia. The Bulldogs will be down a few players and that could impact their mindset on the road against a formidable foe. The Tigers come out swinging early, but Georgia's defense starts to lock up enough for their offense to get in control. PICK: GEORGIA
Now let's get another week going!
#4 Miami (FL) at No.20 Kansas State: If this were ten years ago, Miami (FL) would likely to be largely favored. The last few years have been trying for the Hurricanes. They look like they are about to return to glory to fall short. This game could help them prepare for big challenges with Virginia Tech and Florida State. Kansas State has risen to a top 25 type of team and would love to position themselves in the Big 12 shuffle near the top. Once the energy lowers a bit, the game will slow down and the Wildcats start to pick apart some holes. PICK: KANSAS STATE
#3 Washington at No.2 LSU: Washington was 0-12 not too long ago. Now they are looking to take the next step to potentially be the best team in the Pac-12 after USC and Oregon. A game against LSU could assist them getting there. LSU lost a big piece in one of their starting linemen, but they should be fine for this one. LSU could get out early and start to take the energy out of the Huskies. Homefield advantage will be at its best here. PICK: LSU
#2 No.25 Florida at Texas A&M: The "highlight game" of the week by many is Texas A&M's first SEC game as they host the Florida Gators. The Gators are far from perfect and the Aggies have had a couple good years recently. The 12th man will be rocking for this one and they will be looking to assist the team get in the heads of Florida. The second half will truly tell this story. A couple big plays in the fourth quarter opens it up a bit. PICK: FLORIDA
#1 No.7 Georgia at Missouri: Like Texas A&M, Missouri is also making its SEC debut. They have been a bit better overall recently and might have a better chance to drop their foe, Georgia. The Bulldogs will be down a few players and that could impact their mindset on the road against a formidable foe. The Tigers come out swinging early, but Georgia's defense starts to lock up enough for their offense to get in control. PICK: GEORGIA
Now let's get another week going!
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Presidential Geography: North Carolina
The 2012 presidential election is about 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 North Carolina.
North Carolina:
The choice of Charlotte as the host city for the Democratic National Convention may seem unremarkable. President Obama carried North Carolina by fewer than 14,000 votes in 2008, making him the first Democrat to win the state since 1976. The Obama campaign hopes the convention will be a boon to organizing efforts and help solidify gains in its newly won territory.
But the fact that North Carolina is a target at all for a Democratic presidential campaign would have been hard to contemplate just a couple of election cycles ago. There were trends that seemed to favor the Democrats — an influx of moderate, well-educated voters and a growing Hispanic population — but the payoff seemed years away.
North Carolina had been reliably Republican for more than two decades. Even Bill Clinton, a Southerner who managed to carry other Southern states, fell short in North Carolina. But over the past few decades, the state’s economy has become much more diversified, remaking the state’s political landscape.
Longtime economic engines in the state, like tobacco, textiles and furniture, have been fading, while newer sectors — like banking, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals and telecommunications — have been growing. New kinds of jobs have attracted new kinds of voters, and North Carolina is younger, more diverse and better educated than it used to be.
But Mr. Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina came early. Favorable political conditions nationally and a substantial surge in turnout pulled the state into the Democratic column ahead of schedule. North Carolina, while more competitive than it used to be, is still to the right of the national tipping point, and Mitt Romney has had a slim lead in most surveys of the state conducted this year.
From 1990 to 2010 the number of Hispanics in North Carolina increased almost tenfold, and the state now ranks 11th (PDF) nationally in Hispanic residents. Most of that growth has been in North Carolina’s main urban areas, like Charlotte, Raleigh, Durham and Greensboro.
Indeed, North Carolina’s cities have been leading its population boom, making the state significantly more urban.
The cities have seen an influx of young, well-educated voters drawn to banking jobs in Charlotte and knowledge jobs in the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill area, known as the Research Triangle, Mr. Heberlig said.
In addition, many African-American families have been moving back to North Carolina, Mr. Guillory said, reversing the out-migration of blacks from the state that occurred in past decades.
The overall effect of these trends on the state’s racial makeup has been substantial. In 1990, North Carolina’s non-Hispanic white population was 76 percent (PDF). By 2000, it had dropped to 73 percent — and according to the Census Bureau’s estimate, it was down to 65 percent by 2011. Currently, the state is 22 percent black, 9 percent Hispanic and 2 percent Asian.
Not surprisingly, the growth of North Carolina’s cities has helped Democratic candidates. If Mr. Obama had matched John Kerry’s 2004 performance in the four counties containing Charlotte, Durham, Raleigh and Greensboro, North Carolina would have remained red in 2008. There are now enough Democratic-leaning voters in North Carolina’s metropolitan areas to power a Democratic presidential candidate to victory under favorable political conditions.
Still, North Carolina’s 15 electoral votes would likely go Republican in an election fought to a draw nationally. Outside of its major cities, the state is almost exclusively conservative (save for the rural, black-majority counties in the northeast and the liberal enclave of Asheville). The mountainsin the western third of the state, the rural counties along the coast and many suburbs and exurbs in the Piedmont section of the state are all heavily Republican.
“Republicans are still very strong in white majority rural counties,” Mr. Guillory said.
Moreover, Mr. Obama may be hindered by the state’s struggling economy. It’s unemployment rate, at 9.6 percent, is substantially higher than the national average.
The Bellwether: New Hanover County
Wilmington’s New Hanover County, on the southeast coast, has been an almost exact barometer of the statewide vote in North Carolina for the past three presidential elections. While it is a bit less diverse than North Carolina as a whole, New Hanover County is home to well-educated voters associated with the University of North Carolina-Wilmington, and it has a fast-growing(PDF) Hispanic community.
Its economy has a bit of both old and new North Carolina, revolving around tourists flocking to the beach, as well as manufacturing and cotton and tobacco farming in the rural areas, Mr. Heberlig said.
One word of warning, though: New Hanover County has been slowly trending Republican, Mr. Guillory said, and its accuracy as a statewide bellwether may not hold up this year.
The Bottom Line
Mr. Obama has a 38 percent chance of carrying North Carolina, according to the current FiveThirtyEight forecast. While his 2008 victory was made possible by the demographic trends in the state, it was realized by a surge in turnout that may not be repeated this year.
Turnout in North Carolina jumped almost 8 percent from 2004 to 2008, the largest increase in the nation. The state also experienced among the largest increases in youth turnout. Even with all that, Mr. Obama barely carried the state.
North Carolina is much closer to the nation’s electoral tipping point than it was a generation ago. The state is even closer than it was four years ago. In 2008, the state leaned to the right relative to the national popular vote by about seven percentage points.
Since then, the demographic trends that have made North Carolina more competitive have continued but at a significantly slower pace because of the recession, Mr. Heberlig said. North Carolina has become about two percentage points more Democratic: the FiveThirtyEight forecast currently pegs it at about five percentage points more Republican-leaning than the national average.
Put simply, North Carolina has moved toward the political center, but it’s not there yet.
The New York Times and Micah Cohen have been taking a state by state look at each state throughout the the weeks leading up to Election Day . Next up is North Carolina.
North Carolina:
The choice of Charlotte as the host city for the Democratic National Convention may seem unremarkable. President Obama carried North Carolina by fewer than 14,000 votes in 2008, making him the first Democrat to win the state since 1976. The Obama campaign hopes the convention will be a boon to organizing efforts and help solidify gains in its newly won territory.
But the fact that North Carolina is a target at all for a Democratic presidential campaign would have been hard to contemplate just a couple of election cycles ago. There were trends that seemed to favor the Democrats — an influx of moderate, well-educated voters and a growing Hispanic population — but the payoff seemed years away.
North Carolina had been reliably Republican for more than two decades. Even Bill Clinton, a Southerner who managed to carry other Southern states, fell short in North Carolina. But over the past few decades, the state’s economy has become much more diversified, remaking the state’s political landscape.
Longtime economic engines in the state, like tobacco, textiles and furniture, have been fading, while newer sectors — like banking, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals and telecommunications — have been growing. New kinds of jobs have attracted new kinds of voters, and North Carolina is younger, more diverse and better educated than it used to be.
But Mr. Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina came early. Favorable political conditions nationally and a substantial surge in turnout pulled the state into the Democratic column ahead of schedule. North Carolina, while more competitive than it used to be, is still to the right of the national tipping point, and Mitt Romney has had a slim lead in most surveys of the state conducted this year.
From 1990 to 2010 the number of Hispanics in North Carolina increased almost tenfold, and the state now ranks 11th (PDF) nationally in Hispanic residents. Most of that growth has been in North Carolina’s main urban areas, like Charlotte, Raleigh, Durham and Greensboro.
Indeed, North Carolina’s cities have been leading its population boom, making the state significantly more urban.
The cities have seen an influx of young, well-educated voters drawn to banking jobs in Charlotte and knowledge jobs in the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill area, known as the Research Triangle, Mr. Heberlig said.
In addition, many African-American families have been moving back to North Carolina, Mr. Guillory said, reversing the out-migration of blacks from the state that occurred in past decades.
The overall effect of these trends on the state’s racial makeup has been substantial. In 1990, North Carolina’s non-Hispanic white population was 76 percent (PDF). By 2000, it had dropped to 73 percent — and according to the Census Bureau’s estimate, it was down to 65 percent by 2011. Currently, the state is 22 percent black, 9 percent Hispanic and 2 percent Asian.
Not surprisingly, the growth of North Carolina’s cities has helped Democratic candidates. If Mr. Obama had matched John Kerry’s 2004 performance in the four counties containing Charlotte, Durham, Raleigh and Greensboro, North Carolina would have remained red in 2008. There are now enough Democratic-leaning voters in North Carolina’s metropolitan areas to power a Democratic presidential candidate to victory under favorable political conditions.
Still, North Carolina’s 15 electoral votes would likely go Republican in an election fought to a draw nationally. Outside of its major cities, the state is almost exclusively conservative (save for the rural, black-majority counties in the northeast and the liberal enclave of Asheville). The mountainsin the western third of the state, the rural counties along the coast and many suburbs and exurbs in the Piedmont section of the state are all heavily Republican.
“Republicans are still very strong in white majority rural counties,” Mr. Guillory said.
Moreover, Mr. Obama may be hindered by the state’s struggling economy. It’s unemployment rate, at 9.6 percent, is substantially higher than the national average.
The Bellwether: New Hanover County
Wilmington’s New Hanover County, on the southeast coast, has been an almost exact barometer of the statewide vote in North Carolina for the past three presidential elections. While it is a bit less diverse than North Carolina as a whole, New Hanover County is home to well-educated voters associated with the University of North Carolina-Wilmington, and it has a fast-growing(PDF) Hispanic community.
Its economy has a bit of both old and new North Carolina, revolving around tourists flocking to the beach, as well as manufacturing and cotton and tobacco farming in the rural areas, Mr. Heberlig said.
One word of warning, though: New Hanover County has been slowly trending Republican, Mr. Guillory said, and its accuracy as a statewide bellwether may not hold up this year.
The Bottom Line
Mr. Obama has a 38 percent chance of carrying North Carolina, according to the current FiveThirtyEight forecast. While his 2008 victory was made possible by the demographic trends in the state, it was realized by a surge in turnout that may not be repeated this year.
Turnout in North Carolina jumped almost 8 percent from 2004 to 2008, the largest increase in the nation. The state also experienced among the largest increases in youth turnout. Even with all that, Mr. Obama barely carried the state.
North Carolina is much closer to the nation’s electoral tipping point than it was a generation ago. The state is even closer than it was four years ago. In 2008, the state leaned to the right relative to the national popular vote by about seven percentage points.
Since then, the demographic trends that have made North Carolina more competitive have continued but at a significantly slower pace because of the recession, Mr. Heberlig said. North Carolina has become about two percentage points more Democratic: the FiveThirtyEight forecast currently pegs it at about five percentage points more Republican-leaning than the national average.
Put simply, North Carolina has moved toward the political center, but it’s not there yet.
College Football Week 2 Power Rankings
The first weekend had few big waves and there were no real surprises. The three ranked matchups knocked one top ten team down to the top 20 and the other two off the top 25. Alabama solidified their spot at the top while Michigan ran into a buzzsaw and dropped. Boise State tried some opening weekend magic, but Michigan State had the last laugh. Auburn came up short against Clemson for the second year in a row and. like Boise State, find themselves outside the top 25 now. Those two are replaced by Notre Dame and Louisville who ran themselves to roughly 100 points combined.
Now let the second week begin and here are where the teams stand:
1) (1) Alabama(1-0)- An impressive start to the year as they look to warm up before they start the tough parts of their schedule.
2) (2) LSU(1-0)- They are probably glad to get the taste of January out of their mouth, but must remain hungry to stay on par with the Tide again.
3) (3) USC(1-0)- The Trojans started the years strong as WR Marquise Lee was this week's star.
4) (4) Oregon(1-0)- One step towards finishing their short comings of the last couple years.
5)(6) Florida State(1-0)- The competition was not great, but they looked sharp and now get a team that loss 84-0.
6) (5) Oklahoma(1-0)- They tend to get too comfortable against some teams they should handle. That fear for Sooners' fans likely crept in this week.
7)(7) Georgia(1-0)- A good start, but the year is long and this team will keep that in mind.
8)(8) Arkansas(1-0)- This week will be a tune up for their clash with Alabama.
9)(9) Michigan State(1-0)- They avoided the fate of many BCS schools before them and might be setting their tone for this year with mental toughness.
10)(10) South Carolina(1-0)-A win is a win and that will hopefully for their sake help them in the long run in close games.
11)(14) West Virginia(1-0)- Straight domination. They might be ready for some big time clashes this year right now.
12)(11) Wisconsin(1-0)- Not a pretty win, but not exactly their MO.
13)(15) Oklahoma State(1-0)- It might have been a "cake" opponent, but it still takes some skill to put up over 80 points.
14)(16) Clemson(1-0)- A big time win against Auburn to back up their game last year should have them feeling good.
15)(13) Virginia Tech(1-0)- They needed a couple of late miracles to win, but that is not exactly nothing new for them in the clutch.
16)(17) Nebraska(1-0)- A solid start to the year when the Big 10 could be theirs to win.
17)(18) Texas(1-0)- Definitely a good way to start the year after a couple of rough years (for them) in Austin
18)(25) Ohio State(1-0)- They quickly showed that last year is a distant memory.
19)(12) Michigan(0-1)- They got punched early and often and just could not come back.
20)(22) Kansas State(1-0)- A nice start and now draw a potential ACC threat in Miami (FL).
21)(19) Stanford(1-0)- A bit of a scare, but it could help them during a "rebuilding" year.
22)(20) TCU- The season finally starts for them
23)(NR) Notre Dame(1-0)- They were dominant in all phases to start the year and might be about to make some noise in South Bend again.
24)(NR) Louisville(1-0)- They looked very dominant in beating Kentucky and might have put themselves out front in the Big East if they didn't already have that feeling.
25)(24) Florida(1-0)- A bit of a scare, but they did enough and that was fine for this week.
NEXT 5
1) Boise State(0-1)- A tough loss, but this team has a great chance to notch 10 wins in a weak conference.
2) Auburn(0-1)- They were in a seesaw battle and ended up on the wrong end.
3) Washington(1-0)- A close win and now they draw LSU. Not fun, but could put them on the national stage if they shock the Tigers.
4) Cincinnati- They draw an angry or weakened Pittsburgh. Could be a good or bad way to start the year.
5) Tennessee(1-0)- They looked pretty crisp in the opener and that could be good for them in the tough SEC.
Now let the second week begin and here are where the teams stand:
1) (1) Alabama(1-0)- An impressive start to the year as they look to warm up before they start the tough parts of their schedule.
2) (2) LSU(1-0)- They are probably glad to get the taste of January out of their mouth, but must remain hungry to stay on par with the Tide again.
3) (3) USC(1-0)- The Trojans started the years strong as WR Marquise Lee was this week's star.
4) (4) Oregon(1-0)- One step towards finishing their short comings of the last couple years.
5)(6) Florida State(1-0)- The competition was not great, but they looked sharp and now get a team that loss 84-0.
6) (5) Oklahoma(1-0)- They tend to get too comfortable against some teams they should handle. That fear for Sooners' fans likely crept in this week.
7)(7) Georgia(1-0)- A good start, but the year is long and this team will keep that in mind.
8)(8) Arkansas(1-0)- This week will be a tune up for their clash with Alabama.
9)(9) Michigan State(1-0)- They avoided the fate of many BCS schools before them and might be setting their tone for this year with mental toughness.
10)(10) South Carolina(1-0)-A win is a win and that will hopefully for their sake help them in the long run in close games.
11)(14) West Virginia(1-0)- Straight domination. They might be ready for some big time clashes this year right now.
12)(11) Wisconsin(1-0)- Not a pretty win, but not exactly their MO.
13)(15) Oklahoma State(1-0)- It might have been a "cake" opponent, but it still takes some skill to put up over 80 points.
14)(16) Clemson(1-0)- A big time win against Auburn to back up their game last year should have them feeling good.
15)(13) Virginia Tech(1-0)- They needed a couple of late miracles to win, but that is not exactly nothing new for them in the clutch.
16)(17) Nebraska(1-0)- A solid start to the year when the Big 10 could be theirs to win.
17)(18) Texas(1-0)- Definitely a good way to start the year after a couple of rough years (for them) in Austin
18)(25) Ohio State(1-0)- They quickly showed that last year is a distant memory.
19)(12) Michigan(0-1)- They got punched early and often and just could not come back.
20)(22) Kansas State(1-0)- A nice start and now draw a potential ACC threat in Miami (FL).
21)(19) Stanford(1-0)- A bit of a scare, but it could help them during a "rebuilding" year.
22)(20) TCU- The season finally starts for them
23)(NR) Notre Dame(1-0)- They were dominant in all phases to start the year and might be about to make some noise in South Bend again.
24)(NR) Louisville(1-0)- They looked very dominant in beating Kentucky and might have put themselves out front in the Big East if they didn't already have that feeling.
25)(24) Florida(1-0)- A bit of a scare, but they did enough and that was fine for this week.
NEXT 5
1) Boise State(0-1)- A tough loss, but this team has a great chance to notch 10 wins in a weak conference.
2) Auburn(0-1)- They were in a seesaw battle and ended up on the wrong end.
3) Washington(1-0)- A close win and now they draw LSU. Not fun, but could put them on the national stage if they shock the Tigers.
4) Cincinnati- They draw an angry or weakened Pittsburgh. Could be a good or bad way to start the year.
5) Tennessee(1-0)- They looked pretty crisp in the opener and that could be good for them in the tough SEC.
Sunday, September 2, 2012
Presidential Geography: Delaware
The 2012 presidential election is about 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 Delaware.
Delaware:
Senator John James Ingalls, who represented Kansas from 1873 to 1891, is said to have described Delaware as a “state that has three counties when the tide is out and two when it is in.”
Mr. Ingalls’s point, that Delaware is very small, is as true today as it was then. At just under 1,950 square-miles, Delaware is the second smallest state by land area. It is about 1/40th the size of Mr. Ingalls’s home state of Kansas, the 15th biggest state.
Despite its small stature, Delaware has undergone the same political realignments as larger states in the Northeast, and those changes are easier to see in a state which has just three, fairly distinct, counties (no matter what the tide is doing).
In the latter half of the 20th century, Delaware was a swing state, even a national bellwether in presidential elections. It voted for every winning candidate from 1952 through 1996. In the 1988 election, Delaware favored George Bush, a Republican, by 12 percentage points, more than his seven-point margin nationally. Now, however, Delaware is a solidly blue state. President Obama is a virtual lock to carry its three electoral votes.
In the 1990s — as the Republican brand became more defined by cultural issues like abortion and, more recently, same-sex marriage — Republican support began to erode in Delaware, where the middle of the road tends to be preferred. According to Gallup’s State of the States survey, 41 percent of respondents in Delaware described themselves as moderate, the highest rate in the nation. Many of these voters began to leave the Republican Party as it moved to the right. It is the same trend that made reliably Republican New Jersey a reliably Democratic state.
The exodus of moderate Northeastern Republicans from the party was one prong of a two-pronged realignment that essentially flipped Delaware’s partisan landscape, Mr. Pika said.
At the northern end of the state is Wilmington’s New Castle County, the most urbanized area in Delaware. About half of the companies in the Fortune 500 are incorporated in Delaware, where the legal framework is seen as corporate friendly. The Wilmington area is home to thousands of bankers, lawyers and other white-collar, business-focused voters who tend to hold moderate views on social issues. When they stopped voting Republican, New Castle County went from politically competitive to overwhelmingly Democratic territory.
At the same time, Delaware’s southernmost county, Sussex, moved in the opposite direction. Sussex County is mostly rural, mostly white and culturally conservative. And Sussex County voters who were traditionally Democrats became reliably Republican.
Democrats in southern Delaware “were like those in South Carolina or Mississippi, ” Mr. Pika said, “They moved into the Republican Party in large numbers as the party became more connected with the Christian Right and social issues.”
The transformation has been complete. Sussex County is now Tea Party territory. It was ground zero for the 2010 Tea Party rebellion in Delaware, when conservative voters fueled Christine O’Donnell’s upset victory over the establishment-backed candidate, Representative Michael N. Castle, in the Republican primary for the Senate.
Almost all of Sussex County is rural. It is the top poultry producing county in the country. Along its coast, however, more than two decades of investment has cultivated a string of resorts, Mr. Pika said, and now liberal pockets can be found there. Rehoboth Beach, for example, has a substantial gay community.
Sandwiched between dark blue New Castle County and ruby red Sussex County is Kent County, the most politically competitive region of the state. Kent County is home to Dover Air Force Base, and many military families have settled in the area. Former President George W. Bush carried Kent County in 2000 and 2004. But New Castle’s suburbs have slowly been expanding south into Kent, Mr. Pika said, moving it closer to the ideological center. Mr. Obama won Kent by eight percentage points in 2008, although much of the Democratic improvement in Kent — and Delaware generally — can be attributed to the presence on the ticket of its native son, Vice President Joe Biden.
The Bellwether: There Is None
Delaware does not really have a county that tends to match the statewide two party vote shares. New Castle is more Democratic than the state as a whole. Kent County is moderately more Republican. Sussex is a lot more Republican.
The Bottom Line
Delaware might not have a bellwether county, but political buffs wanting to know what’s happening in the First State need only focus on New Castle County. With almost two-thirds of the vote, New Castle’s political preferences tend to overwhelm the wishes of Delaware’s other two counties. Republican presidential candidates carried both Kent and Sussex Counties in 1992, 2000 and 2004. Yet, they still didn’t come close to carrying the state.
That’s unlikely to change. The Democratic margin of victory in New Castle County has increased in every election since 1984, and Gallup ranked Delaware as the sixth most Democratic state by party affiliation. One in five Delawareans is black, the eighth-highest share in the nation.
On top of Delaware’s default Democratic lean is the home state increaseproduced by Mr. Biden, who is still popular there, Mr. Pika said. It all virtually guarantees that Delaware will be one of the first states in Mr. Obama’s victory column this November. And not surprisingly, he is a 100 percent favorite in Delaware according to the current FiveThirtyEight forecast.
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 Delaware.
Delaware:
Senator John James Ingalls, who represented Kansas from 1873 to 1891, is said to have described Delaware as a “state that has three counties when the tide is out and two when it is in.”
Mr. Ingalls’s point, that Delaware is very small, is as true today as it was then. At just under 1,950 square-miles, Delaware is the second smallest state by land area. It is about 1/40th the size of Mr. Ingalls’s home state of Kansas, the 15th biggest state.
Despite its small stature, Delaware has undergone the same political realignments as larger states in the Northeast, and those changes are easier to see in a state which has just three, fairly distinct, counties (no matter what the tide is doing).
In the latter half of the 20th century, Delaware was a swing state, even a national bellwether in presidential elections. It voted for every winning candidate from 1952 through 1996. In the 1988 election, Delaware favored George Bush, a Republican, by 12 percentage points, more than his seven-point margin nationally. Now, however, Delaware is a solidly blue state. President Obama is a virtual lock to carry its three electoral votes.
In the 1990s — as the Republican brand became more defined by cultural issues like abortion and, more recently, same-sex marriage — Republican support began to erode in Delaware, where the middle of the road tends to be preferred. According to Gallup’s State of the States survey, 41 percent of respondents in Delaware described themselves as moderate, the highest rate in the nation. Many of these voters began to leave the Republican Party as it moved to the right. It is the same trend that made reliably Republican New Jersey a reliably Democratic state.
The exodus of moderate Northeastern Republicans from the party was one prong of a two-pronged realignment that essentially flipped Delaware’s partisan landscape, Mr. Pika said.
At the northern end of the state is Wilmington’s New Castle County, the most urbanized area in Delaware. About half of the companies in the Fortune 500 are incorporated in Delaware, where the legal framework is seen as corporate friendly. The Wilmington area is home to thousands of bankers, lawyers and other white-collar, business-focused voters who tend to hold moderate views on social issues. When they stopped voting Republican, New Castle County went from politically competitive to overwhelmingly Democratic territory.
At the same time, Delaware’s southernmost county, Sussex, moved in the opposite direction. Sussex County is mostly rural, mostly white and culturally conservative. And Sussex County voters who were traditionally Democrats became reliably Republican.
Democrats in southern Delaware “were like those in South Carolina or Mississippi, ” Mr. Pika said, “They moved into the Republican Party in large numbers as the party became more connected with the Christian Right and social issues.”
The transformation has been complete. Sussex County is now Tea Party territory. It was ground zero for the 2010 Tea Party rebellion in Delaware, when conservative voters fueled Christine O’Donnell’s upset victory over the establishment-backed candidate, Representative Michael N. Castle, in the Republican primary for the Senate.
Almost all of Sussex County is rural. It is the top poultry producing county in the country. Along its coast, however, more than two decades of investment has cultivated a string of resorts, Mr. Pika said, and now liberal pockets can be found there. Rehoboth Beach, for example, has a substantial gay community.
Sandwiched between dark blue New Castle County and ruby red Sussex County is Kent County, the most politically competitive region of the state. Kent County is home to Dover Air Force Base, and many military families have settled in the area. Former President George W. Bush carried Kent County in 2000 and 2004. But New Castle’s suburbs have slowly been expanding south into Kent, Mr. Pika said, moving it closer to the ideological center. Mr. Obama won Kent by eight percentage points in 2008, although much of the Democratic improvement in Kent — and Delaware generally — can be attributed to the presence on the ticket of its native son, Vice President Joe Biden.
The Bellwether: There Is None
Delaware does not really have a county that tends to match the statewide two party vote shares. New Castle is more Democratic than the state as a whole. Kent County is moderately more Republican. Sussex is a lot more Republican.
The Bottom Line
Delaware might not have a bellwether county, but political buffs wanting to know what’s happening in the First State need only focus on New Castle County. With almost two-thirds of the vote, New Castle’s political preferences tend to overwhelm the wishes of Delaware’s other two counties. Republican presidential candidates carried both Kent and Sussex Counties in 1992, 2000 and 2004. Yet, they still didn’t come close to carrying the state.
That’s unlikely to change. The Democratic margin of victory in New Castle County has increased in every election since 1984, and Gallup ranked Delaware as the sixth most Democratic state by party affiliation. One in five Delawareans is black, the eighth-highest share in the nation.
On top of Delaware’s default Democratic lean is the home state increaseproduced by Mr. Biden, who is still popular there, Mr. Pika said. It all virtually guarantees that Delaware will be one of the first states in Mr. Obama’s victory column this November. And not surprisingly, he is a 100 percent favorite in Delaware according to the current FiveThirtyEight forecast.
Week 1 NFL Power Rankings
After roughly seven months, football that counts is about to return. The New York Giants stunned many again upending the New England Patriots. The two enter the season with a chance to repeat their 2011 seasons. In the mix will be the Green Bay Packers who had a 15-1 regular season before hitting the steamrolling Giants. Also, the two teams who were a special team play or two away from replacing the Giants and Patriots, the San Francisco 49ers and Baltimore Ravens respectively, are going to be in the hunt again. The Pittsburgh Steelers, if healthy, can find themselves in the shuffle as well. The AFC West will be wide open again and QB Peyton Manning is hoping to use that to his advantage in his first year in Denver with the Broncos. While his former division, the AFC South, should be dominated by the Houston Texans who want to finish a lot of the work they started last year. There will be questions around multiple teams as rookies come in, new coaches adjust, and a new season prepares to lift off.
With all that said and the season ready to kick off, time for a fresh slate of power rankings to start the year.
1) New York Giants: They barely got in the playoffs like in 2007 when they won it all. They will try to repeat and will certainly have a tough road within their division.
2) New England Patriots: Their division looks pretty winnable again and they were a couple missed plays away from claiming another title under QB Tom Brady and Head Coach Bill Belichek.
3) Green Bay Packers: They were probably the favorites heading into the playoffs last year, they are a season removed from winning a title, and have the NFL MVP in QB Aaron Rodgers. A pretty good mix for this team.
4) Baltimore Ravens: They were a missed field goal and a dropped touchdown pass away from heading back to the Super Bowl a decade after winning it all. They will have HB Ray Rice doing everything again and this defense does enough when it matters.
5) Pittsburgh Steelers: They got banged up at the wrong time last year and took QB Tim Tebow lightly in the Wildcard Round when it mattered most. They will be slugging it out with the Ravens once again.
6) San Francisco 49ers: Their biggest weakness was wide receiver last year as TE Vernon Davis had to be a major playmaker for QB Alex Smith, but now they hope WR Randy Moss can be as good as he has been for the most part of his historic career.
7) Houston Texans: Talent, talent, and more talent. Their defense took a big jump last year and if enough of the big names on offense stay on the field; expect them to try to take another step towards the Super Bowl this year and be in the serious contender shuffle.
8) Philadelphia Eagles: A lot of their success will likely revolve on how many games QB Michael Vick plays. He takes risk, but provides big plays. Can the Eagles make another run at an NFC crown?
9) New Orleans Saints: They will struggle with repercussions from Bounty Gate, but QB Drew Brees could still toss 5,000 yards if the team is focused.
10) Detroit Lions: They took a big step in their slow development last year. WR Calvin Johnson and QB Mattthew Stafford are starting to become one of the most deadliest pairs.
11) Atlanta Falcons: QB Matt Ryan will need to show he can win a playoff game and take this team to the next level.
12) Denver Broncos: This team made the playoffs at 8-8 with limited play on offense. Now they insert QB Peyton Manning and expect some improvement regardless of his health. The healthier he is, the more potential this time might have.
13) Dallas Cowboys: On paper, this team has been one of the more talented. But, in December and January when it matters; they come up short. Can they complete the journey they start in September and October?
14) Chicago Bears: The QB Jay Cutler to WR Brandon Marshall tandem is back in business and that might provide enough of a boost for their defense to put them in play with the Packers and Lions.
15) San Diego Chargers: QB Philip Rivers and this team have both failed to live up to expectations many years. They have started years slow to only put extra pressure on themselves. Can they navigate a less than strong division and make a playoff push?
16) Cincinnati Bengals: There were some nice flashes of hope from QB Andy Dalton and WR AJ Green during their rookie campaigns. Can they create some magic in Cincy like QB Carson Palmer and WR Chad Johnson had nearly a decade ago?
17) Carolina Panthers: QB Cam Newton will look to make continued progress as the Panthers will look to do the same.
18) Oakland Raiders: They fell short of the playoffs last year when they had fate in their hands. Can they complete the mission this year?
19) Seattle Seahawks: QB Russell Wilson looked very good in the preseason and there is definitely a lot of energy out of the upper northwest.
20) Buffalo Bills: They started great and then free-falled. They could take another step in their drive for the postseason again this year.
21) New York Jets: Will they be able to show better execution on offense as the season picks up? If not, this could be long year in the Big Apple for the two star quarterbacks and their loud coach.
22) Tampa Bay Buccaneers: They have added some nice pieces and QB Josh Freeman could take a step in the right direction after some regression.
23) Washington Redskins: QB Robert Griffith III will impact this offense, but will still have growing pains. They might provide some surprises for their NFC East foes and the rest of the league.
24) Tennessee Titans: HB Chris Johnson should rebound and that could mean the difference in a few games this year.
25) Kansas City Chiefs: They had a nice finish to 2011 and should take that energy into 2012.
26) Arizona Cardinals: WR Larry Fitzgerald is a top target. His role on the field will help with their weakness at quarterback.
27) Minnesota Vikings: HB Adrian Peterson's health could impact this year throughout the year. They have a strong defense, but they can only handle so much if their offense lack enough bang.
28) Indianapolis Colts: QB Andrew Luck, the top pick, will have to ride a tough year in Indy; but it will pay off down the road as they go through a rebuilding phase.
29) St. Louis Rams: They looked sharp to end the preseason and Head Coach Jeff Fisher is pulling some good moves out of his sleeve in the offseason as this team preps to try to get back to .500 or better.
30) Cleveland Browns: This team continues to struggle to find an identity and lack a lot of depth.
31) Miami Dolphins: They are lacking home run hitters at many positions and that will cause for a lot of pain in games this year. QB Ryan Tannehill will be under pressure to try to match Griffith and Luck all year.
32) Jacksonville Jaguars: HB Maurice Jones-Drew could impact how bad and moderately bad this team might be. They are a long way from those 12 win teams and have to hope for growth from QB Blaine Gabbert to balance out a lack of Jones-Drew.
With all that said and the season ready to kick off, time for a fresh slate of power rankings to start the year.
1) New York Giants: They barely got in the playoffs like in 2007 when they won it all. They will try to repeat and will certainly have a tough road within their division.
2) New England Patriots: Their division looks pretty winnable again and they were a couple missed plays away from claiming another title under QB Tom Brady and Head Coach Bill Belichek.
3) Green Bay Packers: They were probably the favorites heading into the playoffs last year, they are a season removed from winning a title, and have the NFL MVP in QB Aaron Rodgers. A pretty good mix for this team.
4) Baltimore Ravens: They were a missed field goal and a dropped touchdown pass away from heading back to the Super Bowl a decade after winning it all. They will have HB Ray Rice doing everything again and this defense does enough when it matters.
5) Pittsburgh Steelers: They got banged up at the wrong time last year and took QB Tim Tebow lightly in the Wildcard Round when it mattered most. They will be slugging it out with the Ravens once again.
6) San Francisco 49ers: Their biggest weakness was wide receiver last year as TE Vernon Davis had to be a major playmaker for QB Alex Smith, but now they hope WR Randy Moss can be as good as he has been for the most part of his historic career.
7) Houston Texans: Talent, talent, and more talent. Their defense took a big jump last year and if enough of the big names on offense stay on the field; expect them to try to take another step towards the Super Bowl this year and be in the serious contender shuffle.
8) Philadelphia Eagles: A lot of their success will likely revolve on how many games QB Michael Vick plays. He takes risk, but provides big plays. Can the Eagles make another run at an NFC crown?
9) New Orleans Saints: They will struggle with repercussions from Bounty Gate, but QB Drew Brees could still toss 5,000 yards if the team is focused.
10) Detroit Lions: They took a big step in their slow development last year. WR Calvin Johnson and QB Mattthew Stafford are starting to become one of the most deadliest pairs.
11) Atlanta Falcons: QB Matt Ryan will need to show he can win a playoff game and take this team to the next level.
12) Denver Broncos: This team made the playoffs at 8-8 with limited play on offense. Now they insert QB Peyton Manning and expect some improvement regardless of his health. The healthier he is, the more potential this time might have.
13) Dallas Cowboys: On paper, this team has been one of the more talented. But, in December and January when it matters; they come up short. Can they complete the journey they start in September and October?
14) Chicago Bears: The QB Jay Cutler to WR Brandon Marshall tandem is back in business and that might provide enough of a boost for their defense to put them in play with the Packers and Lions.
15) San Diego Chargers: QB Philip Rivers and this team have both failed to live up to expectations many years. They have started years slow to only put extra pressure on themselves. Can they navigate a less than strong division and make a playoff push?
16) Cincinnati Bengals: There were some nice flashes of hope from QB Andy Dalton and WR AJ Green during their rookie campaigns. Can they create some magic in Cincy like QB Carson Palmer and WR Chad Johnson had nearly a decade ago?
17) Carolina Panthers: QB Cam Newton will look to make continued progress as the Panthers will look to do the same.
18) Oakland Raiders: They fell short of the playoffs last year when they had fate in their hands. Can they complete the mission this year?
19) Seattle Seahawks: QB Russell Wilson looked very good in the preseason and there is definitely a lot of energy out of the upper northwest.
20) Buffalo Bills: They started great and then free-falled. They could take another step in their drive for the postseason again this year.
21) New York Jets: Will they be able to show better execution on offense as the season picks up? If not, this could be long year in the Big Apple for the two star quarterbacks and their loud coach.
22) Tampa Bay Buccaneers: They have added some nice pieces and QB Josh Freeman could take a step in the right direction after some regression.
23) Washington Redskins: QB Robert Griffith III will impact this offense, but will still have growing pains. They might provide some surprises for their NFC East foes and the rest of the league.
24) Tennessee Titans: HB Chris Johnson should rebound and that could mean the difference in a few games this year.
25) Kansas City Chiefs: They had a nice finish to 2011 and should take that energy into 2012.
26) Arizona Cardinals: WR Larry Fitzgerald is a top target. His role on the field will help with their weakness at quarterback.
27) Minnesota Vikings: HB Adrian Peterson's health could impact this year throughout the year. They have a strong defense, but they can only handle so much if their offense lack enough bang.
28) Indianapolis Colts: QB Andrew Luck, the top pick, will have to ride a tough year in Indy; but it will pay off down the road as they go through a rebuilding phase.
29) St. Louis Rams: They looked sharp to end the preseason and Head Coach Jeff Fisher is pulling some good moves out of his sleeve in the offseason as this team preps to try to get back to .500 or better.
30) Cleveland Browns: This team continues to struggle to find an identity and lack a lot of depth.
31) Miami Dolphins: They are lacking home run hitters at many positions and that will cause for a lot of pain in games this year. QB Ryan Tannehill will be under pressure to try to match Griffith and Luck all year.
32) Jacksonville Jaguars: HB Maurice Jones-Drew could impact how bad and moderately bad this team might be. They are a long way from those 12 win teams and have to hope for growth from QB Blaine Gabbert to balance out a lack of Jones-Drew.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
