(Note: I began this piece while at the DNC and have only now had a chance to complete it. The presentation at the DNC was excellent, substantive, and on-point--unlike our recent roll in the mud with Palin as VP pick, thanks to the RNC and McCain. As an addition to the McCain ticket, Palin's a hot mess straight from Jerry Springer, with media vetting of her record and life, literally, by the National Enquirer. How about a refocus on issues and the people who vote for them?)
Senator Ken Salazar (CO), Governor Janet Napolitano (AZ), and pollster Andrew Myers presented the case for Obama's potential 2008 win with votes from a newly emergent coalition, one consisting of eight Mountain West states (pdf). Latinos, college educated/upper income voters, and libertarian-leaning gun owners dominate the demography of the region, and generally they are hugely uninterested in the concerns that typically characterize Southern Coalition voters. The latter coalition have in past elections been mobilized by "values" issues summarized in shorthand as "(pro-)god, (pro-)guns, and (anti-)gays."
The eight states sharing measurable demographic attributes and voting behavior: Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona. You can examine data on the electoral gains made by Democratic Party candidates here, broken out state by state.
The DNC Convention Floor. Photo credit: Obama Flickr photostream, DNC '08.
Myers' argument in a nutshell: in the Mountain West and Southwest states, there's no traction on the GOP "brand" uniting economic Darwinists and religious fundamentalists. Instead, people in this region combine a core interest in the environment (especially conservation efforts and water rights--ooh, screwed up on that, McCain) with protecting gun ownership; the added twist is that governmental involvement in preserving the environment is key. Polled Mountain West voters agreed strongly with the statement that a "unique quality of life and the outdoors is a highlight of life" in the region. There's a 29%+ margin in Mountain West residents over those living elsewhere who agree that it's desirable to "raise environmental standards regardless of an increase in taxes/costs."
Other reasons for cautious optimism among Democrats: this emergent Mountain West Coalition has posted solid gains for Dems in the last four years.
- Myers pointed out in that in NV, Kerry '04 lost in the general election for president by -.4%, but Reid '04 won his senate seat by +26% over his opponent. Similar gains have been posted in other states.
- The mountain west contains the fastest growing states, with increases in growth rates by 1.7%-3.6 %. In the top ten fastest growing states, 5 are mountain west states.
- Latino voters are critical to the mountain west. In 2-4 years as this very young-trending group matures in age, their growth in power and influence will ensure that mountain states are still battlegrounds. This holds true through several general electoral cycles as well, perhaps for the next 12-16 years. More immediately, Myers went so far as to say, "The myth about Latinos not supporting Obama is exactly that--a myth." (I've posted previously on data that shows Latino voters in California and elsewhere preferring to vote for Obama over McCain by huge margins, as has MOMocrat Julie Pippert on Obama campaign outreach in Spanish-language media.)
Presidential candidate Obama at Invesco Field, Denver, CO. Photo credit: Obama Flickr photostream.
Myers presented raw voter registration data: for example, Nevada new voter registration trends 2000-2008 saw an increase of 60,670 people registering Democratic in the past 8 years; from January to July 2008, or the past 7 months, there was an increase of +605%, or a 670-person rise in new, previously unregistered voters.
Party changes are also up from GOP to Democratic Party.
Independents allocated (towards parties of choice), 2004 to 2008:
2004 +8 pts D>R
2006 +17 pts D>R
2008 +26 pt D>R
(The trend is the same among Independent Unallocated voters.)
When asked who's driving this change, Myers responded: women overall (1 in 4 of likely voters) and upscale/college educated people, who went from -10 to +6 pts.
According to Myers, parts of the electorate surveyed have given up on the GOP. "The price the GOP has paid is pandering to their Southern coalition on social issues." The GOP's focus on "values" isn't filling gas tanks or making sure jobs are stable or homes aren't foreclosed upon.
The Pepsi Center, Downtown Denver, CO. Photo credit: Obama Flickr photostream.
Voters in this region were asked about acceptance of homosexuality as a way to probe support for GOP "values voting" (Latinos were included in this poll)--a surprising majority of 52% say "homosexuality should be accepted by society" and 30% of that 52% agree much more positively, saying that they are okay with gay marriage or some variant of a civil union. Only 35% agree with the statement "homosexuality is a way of life that should be discouraged" and only 16% strongly agree with a more pointedly anti-gay statement.
Earlier on the panel, Governor of Arizona Janet Napolitano pointed out that in his home state, McCain is struggling. In the state for which he's currently senator, McCain received only 47% of his constituents' votes in the Republican primary. (Romney ate into his majority with 35% of the vote).
Upshot? McCain is in trouble in the Mountain West:
- Bob Barr is biting into the GOP majority and splitting the Republican ticket.
- Colorado and Montana, the Democratic down-ticket races (gubernatorial) are helping to drive voters (or consolidate their support) toward Obama.
- Even gun owners are in play for Democrats. People who own 1-2 guns are split 45% for Obama and 43% McCain in just the western states.
Ultimately Myers has two conclusions: "McCain is more Washington than Western"--McCain's drifted from anything remotely regional in his interests and concerns--and "the GOP has ignored the region for too long." For those reasons, Mountain/Southwestern states will be battlegrounds in 2010 and 2012 and onward, with winnable Democratic majorities.
The most unpopular governor in the nation is the governor of Nevada. Myers predicts it'll flip for Democrats. The region is more connected to California in some trends and tastes than the mountain region. Blacks and Latinos are also represented in growing numbers here, perhaps, like whites and others, seeking to avoid the increasingly high cost of living in both Northern and Southern California cities.
Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden, Denver. Photo credit: Obama Flickr photostream.
Latino Voters in the Mountain West Region
I missed part two of the Western Majority Project's presentation focusing specifically on Latino voters (pdf), but recently I saw this DailyKos diary that broke out polling figures for Latino votes in Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Florida that reinforces some of the basic trends Myers outlined in the presentation I did see. Leaving aside the state of Florida from Myers' rubric of Western States for the time being, we can see that the early polls tracking Latino support for Clinton/Obama during the primaries still hold true now that Obama-Biden '08 is the Democratic presidential/vice presidential ticket.
Look at how much blue here:
(Graph courtesy Democracy Corps Polling.)
Check out the Latino Decisions Poll and Democracy Corps Polling for more details.
Now, how about some universal health care insurance, green energy economy/fuel policies, and infrastructure reinvestment for good-paying jobs right here in America under an Obama administration?
Cynematic also blogs at P i l l o w b o o k.
This is encouraging reading - especially this week, when the MSM is reporting all McCain/Palin all the time (which I suppose is fair, as we dominated the news cycle last week).
Posted by: Donna | September 03, 2008 at 05:06 PM
Here's a neat web-app that you can use to try out your own electoral vote scenarios. Or You can see the predicted electoral vote based on current poll data or you can base it on Future's Market trading
http://news.yahoo.com/election/2008/dashboard
Posted by: Sean | September 04, 2008 at 06:49 AM
The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain might do in the closely divided battleground states, but that we shouldn't have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral vote -- that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Because of state-by-state enacted rules for winner-take-all awarding of their electoral votes, recent candidates with limited funds have concentrated their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. In 2004 two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential election.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Posted by: susan | September 04, 2008 at 04:51 PM
The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain might do in the closely divided battleground states, but that we shouldn't have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral vote -- that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Because of state-by-state enacted rules for winner-take-all awarding of their electoral votes, recent candidates with limited funds have concentrated their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. In 2004 two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential election.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Posted by: susan | September 04, 2008 at 04:52 PM