Tweet
This is interesting.
As you know many pundits have said that the Bush win was the liberal east/west coasts vs. the conservative middle of the nation.
When you look, at the state-by-state electoral map it seems to validate this point (Iowa is pink because it's leaning Bush while the mail-in's are counted);
BUT when you look at the more detailed COUNTIES map (for those overseas: counties are regional govts. within each state) it appears that the Bush support was even more widespread, with only a few concentrations of Democratic counties accounting for most of Kerry's support;
Even more interesting is how the vote broke down. Bush;
** came within 3% of tying for the womens vote. This is quite high compared to previous presidential elections. Part of this was the "security moms" but it also shows a shift due to many women (and minorities) becoming business owners and gaining in income which also tends to make people more conservative.
** was in a dead tie for the newly registered youth vote. This shows that recent studies saying that todays US youth is increasingly conservative are correct.
** was up several points in the black vote. Again this is a new phenomenon.
** took over 45% of the Hispanic vote, again something new.
** took the Jewish vote in many places where it's been Democratic for generations.
** benefitted from a LOT of hostility over Kerry's activities post-Vietnam. This affects a lot of families, and what he said before Congress back then still tickes 'em off, especially those who were POW's and their families. This plus his insisting on touting his "war hero" status at the same time was just too much for them to bear.
** took the vast majority (80%) of the voters who defined themselves as voting "on values". Further analysis shows these to be people ticked off at judges who legislate from the bench, soft-porn passing for family shows, foul language on early hour TV programs and those of faith.
** a lot of crossover votes from Democrats who could not support Kerry because of his policy generalities without specifics and "flip-flops".
** benefitted from the increasingly Republican south. The south had been Democratic for ages, but in the last few elections things started to change and now it's solidly Republican.
** benefitted from an increasingly conservative midwest. In ye olde days states like Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan etc. were solidly Democratic. Now even states that went Kerry (Michigan, Wisconsin etc.) only did so weakly. Iowa went Republican this year and many of the others went Kerry by only 1% - 3%.
Here in Michigan the Kerry margin was very narrow, and statewide it's looking even wose for the Dems in the future. As it is we only have ONE Democrat holding statewide office; Gov. Granholm, and she only won because the Republicans put up a weak candidate last time. Next time she's less than 50-50 to keep her office. Both houses of our legislature are controlled by Republicans.
Democrats also lost a bunch of US House and Senate seats, which has been a pattern in every election since 1994 save for one small gain in 1996. They're also losing in state legislatures and governorships.
To me this looks absent some major revamping of the Dem nominating process, which was changed in 1972-73 by George McGovern to assure only far leftists are truely competitive, they're in real trouble.
As it is now potential nominees have to go so far to the left in the primaries that their positions then make them cannon fodder in the general elections. Unless this changes they may not be competitive at the national level for at least 1-2 generations.
Dr. Mordrid
As you know many pundits have said that the Bush win was the liberal east/west coasts vs. the conservative middle of the nation.
When you look, at the state-by-state electoral map it seems to validate this point (Iowa is pink because it's leaning Bush while the mail-in's are counted);
BUT when you look at the more detailed COUNTIES map (for those overseas: counties are regional govts. within each state) it appears that the Bush support was even more widespread, with only a few concentrations of Democratic counties accounting for most of Kerry's support;
Even more interesting is how the vote broke down. Bush;
** came within 3% of tying for the womens vote. This is quite high compared to previous presidential elections. Part of this was the "security moms" but it also shows a shift due to many women (and minorities) becoming business owners and gaining in income which also tends to make people more conservative.
** was in a dead tie for the newly registered youth vote. This shows that recent studies saying that todays US youth is increasingly conservative are correct.
** was up several points in the black vote. Again this is a new phenomenon.
** took over 45% of the Hispanic vote, again something new.
** took the Jewish vote in many places where it's been Democratic for generations.
** benefitted from a LOT of hostility over Kerry's activities post-Vietnam. This affects a lot of families, and what he said before Congress back then still tickes 'em off, especially those who were POW's and their families. This plus his insisting on touting his "war hero" status at the same time was just too much for them to bear.
** took the vast majority (80%) of the voters who defined themselves as voting "on values". Further analysis shows these to be people ticked off at judges who legislate from the bench, soft-porn passing for family shows, foul language on early hour TV programs and those of faith.
** a lot of crossover votes from Democrats who could not support Kerry because of his policy generalities without specifics and "flip-flops".
** benefitted from the increasingly Republican south. The south had been Democratic for ages, but in the last few elections things started to change and now it's solidly Republican.
** benefitted from an increasingly conservative midwest. In ye olde days states like Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan etc. were solidly Democratic. Now even states that went Kerry (Michigan, Wisconsin etc.) only did so weakly. Iowa went Republican this year and many of the others went Kerry by only 1% - 3%.
Here in Michigan the Kerry margin was very narrow, and statewide it's looking even wose for the Dems in the future. As it is we only have ONE Democrat holding statewide office; Gov. Granholm, and she only won because the Republicans put up a weak candidate last time. Next time she's less than 50-50 to keep her office. Both houses of our legislature are controlled by Republicans.
Democrats also lost a bunch of US House and Senate seats, which has been a pattern in every election since 1994 save for one small gain in 1996. They're also losing in state legislatures and governorships.
To me this looks absent some major revamping of the Dem nominating process, which was changed in 1972-73 by George McGovern to assure only far leftists are truely competitive, they're in real trouble.
As it is now potential nominees have to go so far to the left in the primaries that their positions then make them cannon fodder in the general elections. Unless this changes they may not be competitive at the national level for at least 1-2 generations.
Dr. Mordrid
Actually, the whole Bay Area is amazing on how many different kinds of people live here.
Comment