November 10, 2004
NO TEA AND SYMPATHY?:
Worse Than It Looks: The political landscape is not the same as it was in 2000. For Democrats, their situation is getting worse. (James W. Ceaser and Daniel DiSalvo, 11/09/2004, Weekly Standard)
Beneath the apparent stability in Red and Blue states, some analysts have now begun to show that American voters moved markedly toward the Republican party. Bush increased his percentage of the vote in 45 states, and his gains were particularly impressive in many of the states that he lost. Blue America in 2004 is of a decidedly lighter hue than it was in 2000.Perhaps the best way to appreciate this change, however, is not to focus on Bush's share of the vote, but instead to compare the percentage of the vote received by the Left Coalition of Gore-Nader in 2000 and Kerry-Nader in 2004. It is revealing to focus on this coalition, because it represents the real opposition to the Republican party. By this measure, if the electorate was as unchanged as many have suggested, the Kerry-Nader percentage of the vote in each state in 2004 should have equaled the Gore-Nader percentage in 2000.
But this was decidedly not the case. Although John Kerry received a larger share of the vote than Al Gore in 25 states, this masks the general decrease of the Left Coalition, which was often substantial. In only three states--most noticeably in Howard Dean's Vermont, but slightly in South Dakota and Wyoming, where the Left is at its weakest--did the score of the Left Coalition clearly increase between 2000 and 2004. Take, as one of the most conspicuous examples, John Kerry's home state of Massachusetts. Kerry slightly outpolled Al Gore. But this point is hardly as relevant since in 2000 Gore and Nader combined to receive 66 percent of the vote. Without Nader on the ballot in Massachusetts, Kerry was still only able to poll 62 percent--a notable decline, even with the added pull of a favorite son on the ballot. In New York, 64 percent of voters chose the Left coalition in 2000, while only 60 percent did so in 2004. There were instances of larger losses in other Blue states: Hawaii 8 points, Rhode Island 7 points, and in Connecticut and New Jersey 6 points each. Changes of this magnitude belie the notion of "stability" that Meyerson and others have advanced.
One of the more inexplicable consolations Democrats are offering each other is that if only a few hundred thousand votes were switched in OH they'd have won. Strange for a party that controlled Congress for 70 years not to recognize that a John Kerry with 55 Republican Senators and Tom DeLay running the House would have been a footnote to history. Posted by Orrin Judd at November 10, 2004 3:14 PM
Estwhile monoities are joining the majority, "becoming White," in the sociologists' parlance, New Deal voters are in Check-out City, women are thinking more like men. It's starting to feel like the fourth quarter of a 35-0 high school football game, as the cheer starts, "It's all o-o-ver. It's all o-o-ver."
Posted by: Lou Gots at November 10, 2004 3:38 PMComments about OH's vote shows small-minded tactical thinking, while any resurgence of the party will require strategic thought.
Posted by: Chris Durnell at November 10, 2004 3:49 PMI remember when I was watching the returns I noticed that in state after state Bush was doing better than in 2000. Most Blue states are far more Sky Blue than Indigo.
Posted by: Bart at November 10, 2004 4:08 PMWhen you put the red/blue map and the map with the shades of purple next to each other, you see that the Dems are incapable of winning many counties outside the bright blue spots. They either get 60 % or more in a county or they lose. Zell Miller is right, the Dems are no longer a national party.
Posted by: Peter at November 10, 2004 4:18 PMI gues when you lust after power, the idea of a thin Electoral College majority coupled with your opponent getting not just a plurality (as did Gore) but an absolute majority has a certain level of appeal. Anything is better than losing, even if it means 4 years of acrimony and gridlock (see Clinton's 2nd term).
What's most notable is that almost all the close races went to Kerry. Bush's only really two close wins, New Mexico and Iowa, were Gore states in 2000, and unnecessary for the electoral vote majority. NV and OH came next. Kerry meanwhile barely won WI, MI, PA, MN, and NH. OR ended up pretty close, too.
The same sort of swing necessary to give Kerry OH and the presidency would have, in the other direction, given Bush a truly massive majority, taking MN, WI, PA and NH, and getting very close in OR and MI. (Oregon ended up closer than Florida.)
Democrats have a lot fewer "ways to win": they really have to take one of FL or OH. Republicans are close in too many states, especially in the midwest.
Posted by: John Thacker at November 10, 2004 5:18 PMCame across this interesting set of maps the other day (I forget where exactly). Food for thought.
Maps and cartograms of the 2004 US presidential election results
Posted by: MB at November 10, 2004 5:26 PMTwo thoughts, somewhat contradictory:
1. Remember that '96 followed '94.
2. In terms of the party status, losing seats in the House and Senate is much worse than a relatively narrow loss to a popular war-time president with an ok economy.
Posted by: David Cohen at November 10, 2004 6:00 PMAs OJ mentioned a couple days ago, Bush had 44% in CA and did no campaigning there.
Arnold is now working on altering the balance of power in the CA legislature.
Hispanics are at least open minded about the Republicans, as OJ also noted.
Conditions in CA may be the scariest stat of all.
Posted by: JAB at November 10, 2004 6:55 PMAnd this was with all the standard Democrat ballot box stuffing. If/when Congress requires solid proof--perhaps even just showing a driver's licence--to vote, the Dems will lose bigtime.
In Chicago, you vote the graveyards;
In California, you vote the wetbacks.