11.10.2008

Whistling Past Bubba

Although it's natural to compare Barack Obama's map against that of the losing Democratic efforts in 2000 and 2004, perhaps the more interesting comparison is with 1992, as Bill Clinton won both the popular vote and the Electoral College by similar margins to Obama:



The Democrats seem to be on the verge of quarantining the Republicans to a few, relatively electorally dry areas. As compared with 1992, there has been a net swing of at least 19 points to the Republicans in seven states: Kentucky, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Louisiana, West Virginia, Wyoming and Arkansas. All of these states but Wyoming form a contiguous region, which we refer to as the "Highlands" region but which is more commonly called the Inland South.

As compared with 1992, this represents a significant loss for Democrats, as Bill Clinton carried each of Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, Louisiana and Arkansas in 1992. As compared with 2000 or 2004, however, the loss of these states is less electorally relevant to the Democrats. Al Gore was not able to carry any of these states, including his home state of Tennessee, nor was John Kerry. If you're going to have to sacrifice a particular region of the country, this is not a bad one to sacrifice. The only state that may sting a little is Missouri, which shares much in common with this region and is quickly losing its bellwether status.

What's more, the Democrats have not had to sacrifice the entirety of the South. As compared with 1992, they performed better in North Carolina, South Carolina and Florida, and much better in Virginia. The three Southern states that Barack Obama carried but Bill Clinton didn't -- North Carolina, Virginia and Florida -- account for 55 electoral votes, nearly canceling out the 65 electoral votes from the seven Southern states (Georgia, Missouri, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas and West Virgina) that Bill Clinton carried but Barack Obama didn't.

Elsewhere, the Democrats have now put the Northeast completely out of reach. Although some of these gains are superfluous, at least four former swing states (New Hampshire, New Jersey, Delaware and Maine) no longer seem to fit that description. The Democrats have also gained ground in essentially all states in the industrial Midwest except Minnesota, but including Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, Illinois and Iowa, (and by smaller margins Ohio and Pennsylvania).

West of the Mississippi, there is something of a parallel pattern to the South. Democrats have fallen further behind in the Mormon belt -- Wyoming, Utah and Idaho, but have gained ground in Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. Arizona may be more fruitful with John McCain off the ballot in 2012. Only in California do their gains seem somewhat superfluous, but there is some utility to them in having a large enough cushion that they do not need to defend the state.

Essentially, by sacrificing 50 or so Electoral Votes from the inland South, the Democrats have taken about 60 votes from former swing states and turned them into Lean Democratic states, and another 44 or so from former lean Republican states and turned them into swing states. This is a good trade-off.

Former swing states which are now lean Republican (45):
Missouri (11)
Tennessee (11)
Louisiana (9)
Kentucky (8)
Arkansas (6)

Former lean Democratic states which are now lean Republican (5):
West Virginia (5)

Former swing states with are now lean Democrat (60):
New Jersey (15)
Washington (11)
Wisconsin (10)
Oregon (7)
New Mexico (5)
Maine (4)
New Hampshire (4)
Delaware (3)

Former lean Republican states which are now swing states (53 EV):
North Carolina (15)
Virginia (13)
Indiana (11)
Colorado (9)
Nevada (5)

Former lean Democratic states which are now swing states (0 EV):
--None--

134 comments

RocketRay said...

Boobies!

Oh, forgot this isn't Fark. :)

Wayward Son said...

North Carolina may need some more work before it is a true swing state. Obama had a lot to do with this one turning blue.

tek said...

I thought Clinton lost the popular vote

jumbleweeds said...

Kerry won the popular vote. Nate, how long will it take for you to realize that the 2004 election was stolen?

andrew said...

Will VA still be a swing state in 2012? It seems to me that 5 points is a pretty good win margin and the DC suburbs should keep growing and further liberalize the state. I find it hard to believe it will be swinging back any time soon absent something dramatic happening.

J A said...

Wouldn't FL be former lean Rep that's now Swing on list?

Andy JS said...

The unprocessed votes from California have finally started coming in. Obama has just picked up 300,000 votes in the last hour or so.

Baltar said...

"The Democrats seem to be on the verge of quarantining the Republicans to a few, relatively electorally dry areas."

Quarantining Republicans...I think you are on to something here...

GC said...

Clinton won a plurality in 1992. He did lose in the sense that he didnt capture a majority in a three-way race.

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1992&f=0

Chocolate Thunder said...

It's not a great comparison to say Dems lost this year as compared to '92... As 92 was a really wacky race with Perot taking 30 some percent of the vote, the majority of which I think were republicans.

The Law Talking Guy said...

These are the Huckabee states (the "Inland South."). That may be where the GOP will be stranded.

ChrisS said...

"The liberals in their coastal enclaves ..."

And really, racism is dead in america. Just look at how notoriously racist/good ol' boy areas of the country turned the other cheek an' were so indecisive before voting for the well-qualified black man for president.

If Bill Clinton or someone just like him ran this year instead of 1992, the electoral map would have looked like 1984 only blue.

Nicholas Warino said...

How much of this is due to Clinton being a Southern Democrat with a Southern VP with Obama being a Northern, Big-City Democrat with a Quasi-North East VP?

VegnaBlitz said...

Excellent analysis as always.

Maybe you could factor in the 1996, 2000, and 2004 maps for trends, accounting for popular vote differentials?

Considering Clinton won/lost several different states in 1996, even with a bigger margin of victory, this could help weed out some of the Perot effect. It's unlikely we'll see such effective third party candidates in 2012, and if then, it's even more unlikely to have someone who would appeal in the same manner as Perot. Thanks.

tek said...

Thanks GC. I think I understood what he meant after I posted. I think he means that Obama one by the same amount (percent margin) that Clinton one, but not the same pure percentage

Kennyb said...

Of course, Bill Clinton was a white governor FROM the Inland South.

harold said...

"I thought Clinton lost the popular vote"

"Clinton won a plurality in 1992. He did lose in the sense that he didnt capture a majority in a three-way race."

Ridiculous. There is no possible rational "sense" in which Clinton did not win the popular vote.

With a very few local exceptions where run-offs are required, in almost all US elections, a district is won by the candidate with the plurality of the vote. End of story.

In a race dominated by two candidates, one will usually win a majority of the vote, but that is irrelevant in most cases. When there are three or more strong candidates it is quite predictable that the winner may not win an absolute majority of the votes. But the winner is still the winner.

George W. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000, and actually should have lost the EV as well.

Bill Clinton won the popular vote in 1992 and 1996.

Antmatic said...

The most interesting state in this analysis is Georgia. Clinton won Georgia with a coalition of rural white voters (from Appalachian and Southern GA) and Atlanta area black voters. Georgia became more heavily Republican from 1996-2004 as rural white voters moved to the GOP. However, Obama is now slowly bringing in suburban and Atlanta area white voters (along with Hispanics) to replace those lost rural white voters while supercharging the black vote. GA will be a toss-up in future elections. Atlanta will be more like its ACC counterparts (NC and VA) than its SEC counterparts.

dkwattscom said...

Common denominators:
Hispanic/Youth Vote

Doesn't bode well for the GOP in 2012 and beyond.

Nicholas Warino said...

I think it would be interesting to do a state-by-state trendline showing the political movement from 1992-1996-2000-2004-2008. And then show the same trendlines in relation to national movement. I've done that for 2004 and 2008, but that's not sufficient for a good trendline.

susan said...

Interesting discussion, glad to see (1) developing materials enrich this site, and (2) trend towards a government I can trust.

A few not entirely unrelated thoughts. Today midday Obama has ~289.3K more votes than last night, while McCain has ~204.3K more (via DailyKos, same as CNN et al.), total ~125,001K. Over the last few days, there have been brief incidences of higher increases for McCain, but overall the trend has been towards increasing Obama's share. The current 52.6 to 46.1 is now solid, so it might increase some more. I assume this is because the slower count, provisional, absentee (are some early votes in this count?) are more strongly Obama than the rest.

I do hope and trust that all incidences (like FL Hillsborough) of cheating are being explored and will be exposed regardless of diminished public interest.

Will biased vote counting tricks and techniques (assuming they exist) be exposed in Alaska, Georgia, Missouri (not sure about the last)?

This off topic, but of interest. News today of Obama plans for Gitmo encouraged and saddened me, a reminder of how difficult it will be to deal with the consequences of dishonest and nasty policies that should not have been possible in my beloved country. Reminded me of Watergate:
"When first you practice to deceive, oh what a tangled web you weave."
http://my.earthlink.net/article/pol?guid=20081110/4917bfd0_3421_1334520081110171270677
Very balanced reporting by AP, I thought.

yorkmc said...

I wonder what the electoral math will look like after the 2010 census. I've read about a shift of 6 seats from the northeast/midwest to the south/southwest.

Davy said...

I think Nate is an insomniac like me. I've hardly written two sentences on my thesis this morning. He's written a whole essay.

micah said...

As 92 was a really wacky race with Perot taking 30 some percent of the vote, the majority of which I think were republicans.

1) Perot got 19% of the vote.

2) The data seem to indicate that he took equal numbers of votes from Clinton and Bush, at least on a nationwide level.

bcf said...

I think a comparison to 1988 would be interesting. After all, that was when the present blue-red configuration started taking shape.

1992 and 1996 had Ross Perot taking somewhat more Republican than Democratic votes.

I think a 1988-2008 comparison would more clearly demonstrate what became obvious to me this year: A distinct difference between western conservatives and southern ones.

micah said...

yorkmc: Here's one guess. Texas is the big winner; Ohio and New York the big losers. Overall, McCain would have gotten 7 more electoral votes under this allocation than under the current one.

humanist said...

It is true of course that some of the transformation is due to the contrast of Southern candidates as against Northern candidates. But what this really means is a genuine electoral shift: the perception used to be that post-Reagan Democarts could win only through the center/from the South; this perception is now dispelled, because (a) Virginia is Northernized; (b) the Mountain West is Californized.

polls_apart said...

@J A:
I believe Florida was previously a swing state, and remains so.

robert said...

Nate - Interesting to compare this map to this one: http://www.economicadventure.org/visit/exhibits/nbss/maps/ancestry/ancestry.cfm

Mouse over the Inland Southern counties for more information.

This map is based on census data and shows what the largest (self-reported) ancestry is in county of the United States. Take a look at it and you'll see that the interior south, where Obama could get no traction and almost the only part of the country where people voted more Republican in 2008 is the part of the country dominated by people who describe their ancestry as not German or English or Spanish or Irish but "American."

This sounds at first blush like simple ignorance of the concept of ancestry, but the map's annotation notes that "The region had very low levels of immigration for 200 years. ... According to the 1870 census, less than 2% of the south was immigrants." In most of the rest of the deep south's counties the biggest ethnic group is African-Americans descended from slaves. While the rest of the country has gotten more ethnically mixed recently, the south, and I'd guess particularly Appalachia, has had a nearly static, isolated population for two centuries.

And now those "American" Americans are the most reliable Republican voters.

Nicholas Warino said...

Although, if some Red States are gaining more EV due to population shifts from some Blue States, then those Red States are becoming more blue at the same time, right?

Or in the case of Texas, it's growth in population is in large part due to increased Hispanic growth, making it a greater possibility for Democrats. Could Texas be a lean-GOP state in 2012 and a swing state in 2016?

Joe The Fake Virginian said...

@ humanist

I think you are spot on with Virginia being more North-Easternized and Mountain West being more Californiated. However, another interesting trend is the increased numbers and voting power of non-caucasians. Funny how areas with the most "American" ancestry are the most conservative. Compare and contrast to areas where people "remember" where they came from and are happy to be Americans. If a lot of your neighbors come from different parts of the country or different parts of the world, you are far less likely to be against "That One" or to have a lily-white perception of what it means to BE American (or a GOOD American).

Antmatic said...

I think Texas will take a while...

Antmatic said...

Arizona should be competitive for Democrats starting in 2010 when McCain's seat is up.

Bob X said...

bcf said... "I think a comparison to 1988 would be interesting. After all, that was when the present blue-red configuration started taking shape."
1860 is when it started taking shape ;-)

Davy said...

This analysis mirrors the electoral shift from 2004.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/11/05/us/politics/20081104_ELECTION_RECAP.html

I wonder if Clinton had been from somewhere else if things would have been different in 1992.

Another Mike said...

Seems like you would need to account for home state effects. Democrats are up in IL, DE, and IN. Republicans are up in AZ, AK, AR, and TN. Only TX goes against the trend.

mkvd said...

Please don't lump Missouri in with those inland southern states. Missouri still gets some credit as a bellwether state, though, we can't seem to count our votes too fast here.

6,000 isn't a huge lead for McCain and the Democrats swept into all the state offices.

You forget that there was no early voting in Missouri like they had in some of the other states you mentioned. The Republicans were in control of that.

Also, not sure what effect third party candidates like Nader had. He drew 17,000 votes here, but wasn't on ballot in Indiana. Barr was on ballot in both.

MotherHoose said...

a 2 minute collage of election day 2008....and, there is our Nate!

Link

Voice of the Midwest said...

Recommended reading: "The Emerging Democratic Majority" by Ruy Teixiera. It was written in the mid to late 1990s. Very prescient about the growth and power of minorities in American geographic politics.

For instance, he predicted a 0.71% growth of new Americans of non-white descent a year from 2000 forward. Even with Bush era immigration restrictions, that number actually 1.04% per year.

The writers also predicted that the growth would solidify the Midwest and Rocky Mountain states by 2010 for the Democrats; Arizona, Nevada, and Southern California by 2012; and Texas by 2016.

2008 could be viewed as the year that the Culture Wars ended and the beginning of true minority growth in seats and power at the state and federal level simply because of numbers.

sporcupine said...

Nate,

I'm looking at those Bubba states and thinking I see:

Low income
Weak economies
Weak population growth

How many congressional seats do you think they'll lose after the 2010 census? I'd bet on one from Kentucky!

andrew said...

TX will be blue by 2020:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080721/moser

Political scientists are projecting that Bush Country will morph, by 2020, into the nation's second-largest Democratic state. "Texas," Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean enthused during the DNC's rules committee showdown in May, "is ready to turn blue."

Danny said...

I think this analysis puts too much emphasis on the party and not enough on the candidate. The map would have been very different if Hillary Clinton had been on the ticket instead of Obama. Just as some of the states that went for Clinton in 92 and 96 went red in 2000 and 2004, some that went for Obama may not be as excited about future Dem candidates.

Rasmus said...

robert-
"Americans" are indeed a very significant variable, one of the most negative demographic groups for the Democrats. But you aren´t the first to discover this- I did in my model, Nate did in his one.
This is a well-known fact for demographic-analysis freaks.

markymark said...

Wowers if Texas did turn blue the GOP wouldn't stand a chance. I think what is happening is the slow break down of the 1968- Republican coalition. Nixon and Reagan made inroads into the south, and the GOP have concentrated on this region. The current Electoral map shows the problem with that strategy now. They have ceded great swathes of the map to Democrats by essentially copncentrating on social issues and allowing Dems pretty much free reign on other issues. Until they find a way to talk about issues that actually matter (health care, education etc etc) in a way that resonates and isn't just saying no no no all the time the GOP could be out of power for a long time.

JD Fermenich said...

This is detailing exactly what Thomas Schaller was talking about in Whistling Past Dixie. The Dems don't need the south to win, but the Republicans need the north.

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=TmgGcP6pK6AC&dq=thomas+schaller&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=D1wvO2EM81&sig=816HyO_WKEH4UsMBDHsKw0vs60M&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result

Redshift said...

Will VA still be a swing state in 2012?

Nope. The Virginia GOP will probably still be incompetent extremists in four years, since they still believe the reason Republicans lost is that they weren't conservative enough. In 2005, the Dems won the governor's race, and lost the Lt. Gov and Atty General in extremely close races; I think it's likely that with the Obama/Dean machine, we will sweep all three next year, and a majority in the House of Delegates. That would put the Dems with two senators, a majority of the congressional delegation, in control of the statewide offices and both houses of the legislature, and having supported a Democrat for president.

That's not a swing state by any measure, and we'll have three years beyond that to build on the benefits of that dominance.

PresidentHussein said...

Right, how states trend depends partly on the particular qualities of the candidate, but it's clear that the electoral map is fundamentally realigned, with New England, far west + NV, CO, NM, and great lakes/midwest solidly blue for the foreseeable future, with the demographics improving every month. GOPers are being shoved onto a few sparsely populated reservations. If Barack were not a northern liberal AA, a lot of the south would look bluer too. That he won VA and NC is therefore extremely powerful for the Dems.

As I said in an earlier post, the GOP is now largely a mash-up of old Dixiecrats and fellow travelers: prairie gunslingers, anti-tax fetishists, end times Rapturists, militiamen and Millenarians, jingoists and xenophobes, survivalists and skinheads, and the odd secessionist witch doctor. What was Lincoln about the Party of Lincoln has come over to the Dems. The moderate David Brookses (and Powells, Welds, etc.) are fleeing for cover. They no longer want to be seen as joined at the hip to such an unsavory lot.

Andrew said...

"Seems like you would need to account for home state effects. Democrats are up in IL, DE, and IN. Republicans are up in AZ, AK, AR, and TN. Only TX goes against the trend."

I don't think what happened in Indiana can be written off as a home-state effect. The parts of the state in the Chicago market already leaned Democratic and swung to Obama by a smaller margin than Central Indiana did. Obama had no demographic or home-court advantage in the suburbs of Indianapolis. It's a very, very different city from Chicago.

Obama's success in Indiana was largely the result of the factors Sean reported... an overwhelming advantage in resources and effort in a state which previous Democrats had given up without a fight.

Karlo said...

I'll echo others comments about '92 being a wacky year and Clinton being a bad basis of comparison to Obama.

Here's a suggestion for analysis, Nate: How much did the House and Senate really change? We're all talking about a big shift in the parties in both chambers, with Democrats taking greater control, but I assume in at least some places its moderate, Blue Dog democrats replacing moderate RINOs. Using policy scores (ie where candidates stand on Iraq, abortion, and other Republican/Democrat litmus tests) can you quanitfy "Just how more liberal are the House and Senate in 2009 than they were in 2008 or 2005?"

Rodney Peterson said...

A deranged California criminal, Robert Catalfamo, is sending myself and a girl I am writing a movie about threatening messages regarding poisoning Barack Obama's daughters, their classmates, and his wife Michelle. They are violent and full of racial hatred. I have published just ONE here:

www.cuttingconfessionsfilm.blogspot.com

For more background information on Robert Catalfamo and other threats he has made and the story of the film I am writing also see:

www.myspace.com/370392338

We are taking the matter seriously and hope the Secret Service will also.

judas_priest said...

@ susan

You have the quote slightly wrong.

Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!
Sir Walter Scott, Marmion, Canto vi. Stanza 17.
Scottish author & novelist (1771 - 1832)

wv=ovelit

A bostonian's comment about the lighting being too bright

goatdan said...

@ presidenthussein -- I agree exactly with what you said and said so in the past. This was Obama's year because of the unhinging of the Republican machine over the last four. If 2008 Obama ran against 2004 Bush, it would have been a much larger win margin for Bush. If 2008 Obama ran against any other 2008 Presidential candidate, I think it would have been more of a blow out. Or, if any other 2008 Democrat (Hilary, Kerry again, whatever) had run, I expect they would have won even more handily than Obama this year.

This isn't to say that I don't like Obama nor that I think that he will do a good job -- I actually think he may be the best person for this position at the moment in the world -- but there were enough negatives against him (not much experience and relatively unknown as a politician before the election started) that in a normal year he wouldn't have made a dent.

Unless Obama great messes up the next four years, I expect that the map will continue to stay blue for the foreseeable future -- especially if the Republican party decides that their failure comes from not having been "conservative enough" for people.

The last four years of Bush started a HUGE blue wave that I don't even think has crested yet. Unless Obama drops the ball, I expect the Democrats will remain the main ruling party for a long time now.

hocknod said...

Nate, I love you bud but I think a) it's a slow news day (and probably will be for you until the mid-term elections), and b) you're trying to find trends that just aren't there. I think Virginia is trending Democrat with the population in the Northern VA/DC growing, but I can't buy into the fact that GA is "trending" Republican (since it went so big for Bush yet went for McCain by less than three), that NC is trending Democrat (since this is only one election, and it was won by a hair at that), and that Florida is trending, well, anywhere since it seems to be a complete crapshoot with them.

On another note, nice call on NE-2. Pollster.com had it called for McCain until today.

One complaint I do have with this site is with the senate projections. Landrieu and Begich were ranked at 100% to beat their Republican opponents and Landrieu won a rather close race while Begich may have lost - that doesn't seem to fit with a "safe" race. Also, Merkley narrowly defeated Smith in OR telling me that maybe "likely Dem" was a little strong. I say this not to degrade your work (cause it's awesome), but rather to maybe tweak the model for 2012. All in all, great job. Keep us updated on the Franken/Coleman race.

Vinny said...

If Hillary Clinton was the nominee, we would've definitely had Arkansas, West Virginia, and Kentucky. We would've been competitive in Tennessee in Louisiana.

Virginia would've been a lost cause, same as Georgia and Indiana, and Iowa. Montana and the Dakotas as well.

We would've done better than Obama in North Carolina, Ohio, and Florida.

We would still be competitive, but would've done worse than Obama, in Michigan, Wisconsin, Colorado, and New Mexico.

I'd say overall it about evens out, maybe Clinton having a slightly better electoral advantage.

RWD said...

"We would've done better than Obama in North Carolina"

LOL. Hillary got crushed by Obama in the NC primary. No way would she have done better.

Paul said...

Nicholas Warino said...
"I think it would be interesting to do a state-by-state trendline showing the political movement from 1992-1996-2000-2004-2008. And then show the same trendlines in relation to national movement. I've done that for 2004 and 2008, but that's not sufficient for a good trendline."

You mean, like this?

RWD said...

"One complaint I do have with this site is with the senate projections. Landrieu and Begich were ranked at 100%.."

In Nate's defense, LA and AK are pretty...umm, how do I put this...unusual states. So they are probably hard to poll accurately. But overall, I think the model does need some re-working for Senate races. They have less polling, and you can't use national tracking polls to help fill in gaps, so maybe the model just needs to assume more variability/error in senate races.

Just John said...

Unless BHO is completely incompetent, he will serve 8 years and leave this electoral legacy:

290-310 EV's in the bag for Democrats

Swing states being: TX, FL, NC, AZ, IN, MO, GA, AK, MT, ND, NE-2.

The R's are really going to have to remake their coalition to stand a chance.

such sweet thunder said...

I'm not sure I buy the analysis, Nate. I look at the two maps, and all I see is the exigencies of the two elections, not an overarching trend. Texas and Montana are shaded because Perot did especially well there. Appalachia is dark red because Bubbba was from AR and because they're not the biggest fans of Obama. The upper Mid-West is dark blue, but some of Indidan's gain is surely traceable to the Chicago media market and the fact that McCain didn't compete there.

I believe there have been real shifts towards the Dems in many areas of the country, namely the mid-atlantic and rocky mountain states; but I'm not sure your comparison shows that.

Warne: A Palinism.

Phil said...

In the past, you've argued pretty persuasively that swing states only matter in a close election. Thus wouldn't it make more sense to treat the swing states as those that were closest to Obama's margin? A state that Obama wins by .4% while winning the national vote by 6.5% isn't a swing state in an election where state outcomes matter.

sfergus483 said...

Clinton would have carried WV easily. It is normally a Democratic state - it was the most Dem state in the country from 1932-1996.

Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana never, Arkansas might have been somewhat more competitive, but McCain likely favored.

Kennyb said...

karlo, it's not exactly what you were looking for, but today's electoral-vote.com has a section on the Senate GOP becoming more conservative based on issue ratings:

"GOP Senate Caucus Will be More Conservative

One of the effects of the election is to move the center of gravity of the Republican senatorial caucus sharply to the right. Six Republican senators won't be in the new Senate, either due to retirements or defeats and three more are threatened. On the whole, they were a moderate bunch according to the ratings of conservative interest groups."

and a comment on the House make-up as well:

"Another way to look at the House election is to see where Democrats were elected and where Republicans were elected. The following table shows how many of each were elected for each PVI. Not surprisingly, there were more Democrats elected in D+ districts than in R+ districts. However, what is especially noteworthy is that while only nine Republicans managed to get elected to the House in Democratic territory, 65 Democrats won in Republican districts. In other words, there are many districts that vote Republican for President but vote Democratic for Congress. Another consequence of this disparity is that many House Democrats are fairly conservative--they have to be to get elected in deep Republican territory."

Vinny said...

I'm going by polls here:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/Jun03.html

Although there's no way to tell if her lead would've held...would there really be a reason for her lead NOT to hold? Especially from the benefit of the economic crisis.

Kennyb said...

For once, I agree with Mule Rider here. You do not have enough consistent data points to make a trend here, Nate.

Don Malcolm said...

Don't know if it's just my browser acting up, but the Electoral History images aren't coming thru right now.

Hope that you will find time to update those fine tables with the 2008 results.

Focusing on urban vs. rural counties in the parts of the south that are growing (VA, NC, SC, GA) and contrasting them with the "inland" areas might show how the Dems made extra hay this time. If there's any way to break out those area by age and compare the '08 results with '04, that might show some interesting movement...

sfergus483 said...

Remember in any Hillary/McCain race, Palin would not have been the VP choice, and thus not the drag on the ticket she became.

That alone would have changed the course of the election.

goatdan said...

@ rwd -- "LOL. Hillary got crushed by Obama in the NC primary. No way would she have done better."

Actually, I brought this up before -- just because a candidate does really well in the primaries does not necessarily mean they will do better in the actual election. I think there is a chance that Hilary would have been more accepted by both independents and traditional Republican voters because of her name recognizability and experience.

Generally, independents and traditional voters for the other side don't vote in primaries, so you end up with the person that excites the base the most, and not necessarily the person that will get everyone on board the most.

This will be played out in 2012 if Palin runs. She excites the base a TON and could very well get the nod from her party. But, as polls showed on the eve of the election, the majority of people do not like her.

The base may want her to be their President, the rest of the country doesn't care. And, theoretically most of the Hilary base voted for Obama anyway, as his views lined up with hers on the topics, and that generally is what people vote on.

I'd agree with the original poster who had said that Hilary probably would have actually landed more states. But, although I was initially a Hilary supporter, I think that Obama was the right choice at this point in time, and he will be able to make great gains by the next Presidential election cycle that Hilary probably would not have made. Of course, that's all just conjecture with almost no facts to support it, but it is interesting to think about none the less...

Kennyb said...

vinny,

That map gives NC to Hillary. Outlier!

I don't think Hillary's ceiling was higher than 338 or 346:

Kerry plus OH, FL, WV, AR, NM, NV, IA, (KY)

And those last 2 are questionable. Obama's ceiling was (apparently) 376 (actual + Missouri)

goatdan said...

@ sfergus483 -- But without Palin, McCain didn't excite the Republican base much if at all. He was the right choice for their best chance to win, but they needed to get that hardcore Republican element out.

I think that at the end of the day, Palin was a zero net gain, and a gamble they had to take -- to get the far right excited, and then to try to get back to pulling for the swing voters...

Vinny said...

Kerry plus OH, FL, WV, AR, NM, NV, IA, (KY)

Missouri as well.

But now that you mention it, the Palin factor does pretty much make Clinton winning unpredictable, since we know he never would've picked Palin.

Mrs B said...

OMG - I agree with mule rider!

These things tend to go in cycles. How long the Democrats are up depends not only on themselves but also on how the Republicans react to defeat.

If I was going to predict something, it would be that for the next few years, the political hub in the US will move away from the right more towards the centre, heading left.

The midpoint of US politics is further to the right than it was before Reagan. Whether the Democrats will manage to drag the midpoint leftwards over the next few years will be interesting to watch.

My view before the election was that a sensible Dem president would first pull back from the right towards the current midpoint, and wouldn't rush into radical change. The reason for that is that in order to cement the Dem lean in the country he has to take with him the roughly 2/3rds of the population who didn't vote for him (one third didn't vote at all, he got just over half the rest - I am sure someone on this site will be able to do the exact maths.). He won't take them with him if he does anything too sudden. Hence the caution on prop 8 probably, also the approach to what to do with Guantanamo Bay.

As for 2012, that could go any which way. Who knows what will happen in the next 4 years? As a not very famous British prime minister, Harold McMillan, said "Events, dear boy, events".

Rhonlynn said...

Sad for MO. We do not look good, and how I ended up in a red state, still boggles my mind.
Democrats did the way they did this tear, cause people are wising up to problems, such as Kerry had in 2004, and even Gore 2000. I think both won their elections, but something under the table occurred, and his name was George.

ogmb said...

It's "Joe-the-Plumber Country".

Btw, Louisiana was likely affected by the African-American emigration after Katrina, or it might've been significantly more blue.

[wv homburro - Tex-Mex fast food]

Andy JS said...

More votes are coming in from Virginia, and Obama now leads there by 53% to 47%.

sfergus483 said...

Goatdan -

The consensus is that the GOP base that was excited by Palin would have been equally motivated by Clinton-hatred, so Sarah would have not been necessary.

Who knows, but this is the commonly held view, that despite the opportunistic respect toward her, no Dem would have brought out the GOP base more than Hillary.

Vinny said...

Also, it seems like Obama supporters would be glad to vote for Hillary if she became the nominee, but the feeling wasn't mutual in some states. Just look at Arkansas (official PUMA headquarters) and West Virginia.

RWD said...

"I think there is a chance that Hilary would have been more accepted by both independents and traditional Republican voters because of her name recognizability and experience."

Hillary's name recognition among Republicans would have been a NEGATIVE. Especially in places like North Carolina. North Carolina would never have been in play without Obama exciting both the African-American community and the young, hi-tech voters in the Research Triangle.

sfergus483 said...

--It's "Joe-the-Plumber Country".--

Which is a fictional world. His own county (Lucas) went to Obama 65-34.

Mrs B said...

...mistype, that's Macmillan.

wv persequ - how Sarah Palin feels treated

Nathan said...

I look at that map and, excepting Wyoming, I see states in which (1) a huge bloc voted explicitly against a black man and (2) was not balanced by another bloc explicitly voting for a black man. In the rest of the south the bigots were matched against black people; this map is the fringe (again, excepting WY which I don't pretend to understand) where bigots occupy a wider region than black people.

Run somebody not black and the pattern will be very different.

goatdan said...

@ mule rider -- In many ways, I do agree with what you said above, but the trend for the last four or five elections is that Hispanics and the young vote has stuck with the democrats. I don't expect either of these groups to have a sudden idealogical shift over some of the social issues at the heart of the Republican party that they care about -- immigration, abortion, and so on.

What I do expect to happen, however, is that the youth vote will continue to get older as they always do, and when that happens is where their allegiances start to shift more. Just because that 20 year old voted Democrat this time and will probably next time doesn't mean that they will think the same thing in 8 or 12 or 20 years.

Hanging onto them will be central to the democrats keeping power for a long time, because you're absolutely right that if they lose them and the Democratic ticket doesn't have someone that excites their traditionally strongest voter demographics to get out and vote, then the country swings back to the Republican side of the ticket.

don't panic said...

hocknod said...

One complaint I do have with this site is with the senate projections. Landrieu and Begich were ranked at 100% to beat their Republican opponents and Landrieu won a rather close race while Begich may have lost - that doesn't seem to fit with a "safe" race. Also, Merkley narrowly defeated Smith in OR telling me that maybe "likely Dem" was a little strong.


landreau still won by >6%

merkeley won oregon fairly handily, by more than 3% (and climbing). it looked closer because of the way votes were counted. the projection was 5% so at the end it will be off by around 1.5%, which is reasonably accurate.

the alaska prediction was clearly off, but i would suspend judgment on that until it's more clear what the final results is and what happened really there

Kennyb said...

The problem is that the Republicans have undercut their otherwise winning message of fiscal conservatism, foreign policy compentence, clean government and lower taxes. Bush himself undercut the first 2, since he does not walk the walk, he had help on the third with corrupt Congressional Republicans and lobbyists (and the Dems will suffer if they do not stay clean). On the forth, Obama won that argument in large part, and if he does not keep his promise, he will pay, like Bush I.

Denise said...

Will VA still be a swing state in 2012? It seems to me that 5 points is a pretty good win margin and the DC suburbs should keep growing and further liberalize the state. I find it hard to believe it will be swinging back any time soon absent something dramatic happening.

Recent history suggests this. Barack did not pick up VA from a vacuum, like he did to a great degree in NC. VA has been trending blue going on 10 years now under the growing influence of N. VA. Warner and Kaine for gov, both state houses trending blue, with the Senate already in Democratic control. We have two Democratic U.S. Senators for the first time since the early 1970s, and the majority of Representatives are Democratic (assuming Perriello wins, which looks like a good bet).

The DC expansion into N. VA. will continue to grow, past Alexandria, Arlington, and Fairfax, consuming more and more of the population of Loudoun and Prince William counties. As long as that trend continues, VA will become more and more Democratic, and there are no signs that it's going to slow down.

The way I see it, national Dems are on the verge of marginalizing the Repubs. VA has been discussed, but NC is emerging as a general battleground because of the huge growth of the tech industry and the liberals it tends to attract. Then, you have the whole southwest: CO, NM, AZ, and NV that are growing hugely in Hispanic populations, and for CO, and to some degree AZ, the tech development of VA and NC. Take the Kerry map, add those new states to it, and the Repubs are in a world of hurt.

sfergus483 said...

The GOP can't court Latino voters without risking totally splitting the party. The hard-line anti-immigrant position is bedrock dogma in much of the southern and western GOP.

This is one of the ongoing major dilemmas in the party.

Lou Dobbs might run as a 3rd party candidate in 4 years. If the GOP is seen as too Latino friendly and Obama is doing OK, he might end up ahead of the GOP candidate.

Kennyb said...

Right, vinny, MO. I counted it, but forgot to list it.

Add to the uncertainty who Hillary would have picked for VP and who McCain would have picked instead of Palin. If Hillary picked Obama and McCain picked Pawlenty, who knows....of course, Nate says VP picks do not matter.

Vinny said...

I hope we all realize what this means -- if it doesn't look like a tight race, then it most likely isn't. I remember people freaking out just because a poll showed an O+6 in PA or something like that...lol

imadis said...

@mulerider,

I really do not think minorities will shift to the Republican fold. It has to do with the way government is viewed in regards to individual rights. I will outline them 'briefly' below.

Basic Individual Rights:

1) Freedom ‘To’
2) Freedom ‘From’
3) Freedom ‘Of’

Defining Individual Rights:

1) The freedom ‘To’ is the right that most people think of when hears the term ‘freedom’. This is one’s right of choosing one’s own religion, freedom of speech, freedom to ride across America on a Harley. Is also includes the right to choose your spouse, your vocation, where you live, where to send your kids to school, etc.

2) Freedom ‘From’ refers to protecting you and your property from harm. Most criminal statutes fall under this category. Examples include banning thievery and murder, protecting property rights and one’s own health. This right is apparently so important that even the THREAT of violating this right can result in penalties, by acts such as speeding, drunk driving, or wanton endangerment.

3) Freedom ‘Of’ is one’s freedom of opportunity, regardless of race, class, sex, religion, etc. Most civil rights laws fall in this category. Education being equal and available to all as well. I also believe that this encompasses the belief that if one works and contributes to society, he/she should be allowed to earn a living wage and provide for one’s family. NOTE: This does NOT mean equal outcome, just equal opportunity.


Comparing the philosophies of the two parties, the Republicans tend to put an emphasis on number one. The Democrats tend to weigh each individual case balancing the 3 rights. One side is more ‘cut and dry’ while one is more ‘nuanced’.

For people to have their rights ‘from’ and ‘of’ protected, we need a strong central government enacting and enforcing laws. There is no other way to do it. It would be great in the Republicans’ minds if we could just do away with government and let everyone be what they can be by self-determination. The problem with this is now the power moves to those with the $$$$.

When times are good, this problem is not as evident. The meltdown on Wall Street has recently exposed this problem. Whether they know it or not, the realization of this represents a tectonic shift in the thinking of the role of government. This is why is does not matter what John McCain did, he could not change the circumstances we are now living in.

Capitalism is the most efficient economic system, but works best when there are checks and balances to protect individual rights. Even Alan Greenspan admits that complete free markets cannot police themselves. An economic system is there to work for society's needs, not the other way around.

When applying these rights to how minorities view government, the minorities will side with the government protecting their civil rights instead of businesses and individuals determining which ones they will be allowed to have.

Most in the majority (such as myself) have not been subjected to significant prejudice to have these feelings, though I was subject to scratching the surface of these feelings when I was in a mixed-race relationship.

wv: 'cowbaro' -- what cowboys use to move dirt.

goatdan said...

@ sfergus483 and rwd -- I don't know -- while the base of Republicans don't like her much, and one can argue that they would have turned out even without Palin against her, don't you agree those Republicans wouldn't have voted for Obama anyway? I think that the gains that Hilary could have made with the independents based on name recognization alone would have been a pretty large jump.

True story -- my grandpa, the biggest Democrat that you would have ever met, in 2000 went to vote (our first and, alas, only time together) and due to failing eyesight he asked to have my mother read the ballot to him. When she said, "George Bush" he declared loudly enough that I heard a couple booths away, "Oh yeah, I remember him! I'm going to vote for him!" Clearly, his memory was going too, but I'm certain that name recognition was the only reason he voted like that.

I'm not saying that his demographic is a huge one, but even if it plays in 1/200 voters, that's a pretty decent chunk in a presidential election cycle.

sandyg said...

Something I would love to see on this site, and haven't seen yet anywhere else, is one of those maps that shows states and districts in proportion to their voting strength rather than geographical size.

It's so deceptive to look at a map of the US and see these vast expanses of red in thinly populated states. And it underscores the Republican argument that the US is a centre-right country. Would be nice to see a visual representation of the falsity of that claim.

Vinny said...

Hillary would've picked Obama for sure. Obama had the flexibility to not pick her if he didn't want to, but she didn't have the same freedom.

McCain probably would've picked Lieberman.

Adam Villani said...

Yeah, I'm skeptical of there really being a linear trend here.

That being said, considering the margin by which Obama won in Nevada, you could maybe put it in the "leans Democrat" category now as its population more closely resembles California's.

ogmb said...

"Joe-the-Plumber Country".-- Which is a fictional world.

I prefer "delusional". It's the country where you have delusions of owning the business you illegally work for as an untrained worker, which, if it just made more profits than it does, would suffer under Obama's proposed tax plan which promises to share the wealth and deprive you of the delusional fruit of your delusional hard work.

micah said...

Hillary would've picked Obama for sure.

That depends on what you're imagining changed to give her the nomination. If she just happened to win one or two more early primaries, than maybe (though I have the sense that, in that case, her campaign would have snowballed to the point where Obama would no longer look like a serious contender by the time she had to make a VP pick). If she won because Obama did something dumb, or because his race speech didn't go over well, it's a different story--then she has a readymade excuse for not picking him.

micah said...

I also think McCain picks Jindal in Clinton-wins-fantasyland, but maybe this is the result of my excessive fondness for symmetry.

Kurt said...

Yet another "agree with Mule Rider".

I said it before, the Democratic party was in a sad, sad state in 2004. And look what they did in 2008! Yes, the Republicans are a mess, but they will put themselves back together far faster than many here think.

They don't make their 2012 nomination for 4 whole years. To believe it will be anything other than competitive is foolish.

T.W. said...

A nice supplement to this would be a map of the US showing which states Nate would now classify as "swing," "lean D," etc.

goatdan said...

@ mule rider -- "although I'm not convinced the GOP will be very competitive in 2012 unlesa they change big time. That's still a long ways off and much depends on how Obama does."

Very, very true. If Obama is not able to stop the Economic slide, wars keep dragging on, the environmental measures go no where and the national debt keeps rising, the GOP will be competitive by default. If, on the flip side, Obama is able to pull off any even semi-miracles here, I do think it will push back the eventual GOP re-uprising until probably 2020 at the earliest, after 4 years under a different Democrat as President.

Andrew said...

Nate and Sean-

I've really enjoyed visiting your site over and over and over again in the lead-up to the election, I'm more than pleased with the content that you've provided, and I'm glad that you've indicated your intentions to stick it out for the long haul.

However, this post gave me a hemorrhoid. How can you compare the elections of 1992 and 2008 and then extrapolate the results into a trend? "The Democrats seem to be on the verge of quarantining the Republicans to a few, relatively electorally dry areas." What? What about what happened in between? Does the 2000 or 2004 electoral map look like the Republicans were quarantined? Are you going to next compare the elections of 1972 and 1984 and talk about the trends you find there as well?

The southern states that Clinton won were not won due to the effects of an underlying trend. The reasons he was able to win in the south in 1992 were a) HE'S FROM THE SOUTH and b) the economy, silly. Clinton was able to go at the Southern Strategy head on thanks in large part to where he was from; Obama, on the other hand, can thank demographic shifts for opening the door to allow his campaign to expose rather large cracks in the Southern Strategy, cracks that there is no clear indication of prior to this election.

judas_priest said...

@ hocknod

Oregon didn't end up being all that close. It had the appearance of closeness due to the vote counting process. Heavily Democratic Multnomah County (Portland - which went 69%-27% for Merkeley, is always the slowest to report. The final result was a 50,000+ vote margin (and as they review the last few votes tthat will increase) which was slightly greater than 3%.

wv=resign.
Repubs should resign themselves to a long period of dem dominance.

Scott said...

It is too much to say that "The Democrats seem to be on the verge of quarantining the Republicans to a few, relatively electorally dry areas." So much of this election is wrapped up in the unique competence, intelligence and magnetism of Obama, the resulting high African American turnout and margins, and the unique revulsion most of us feel at Bush, Rove, Palin and what they have wrought. While many trends are positive for Dems (Hispanics in SW, the dying out of moderate Republicans in the NE, influxes of coastal cosmopolitans to NV, CO, MT, VA, NC), only a competent job of playing to the middle, solving the economic and foreign policy challenges, can further solidify the blue areas of the map.

Staph said...

WV Blue has some interesting stats on the race in West Virginia at http://www.wvablue.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3677

Some highlights:

* 55 percent of all voters decided on their candidate before September.

* 59 percent of that early deciding group had decided upon John McCain in that period compared to 40 percent for Obama.

That ties in with the large amount of advertising McCain spent on the state in April and May when he spent $1 out of $13 dollars he raised in this state and with Obama pretty much writing off the state before the primary (Hillary Clinton did 10 times the visits and outspent him 3-to-1.

When Did You Decide Who To Vote For?

In October (15% of voters): Obama 53% McCain 46% Other 1%

In September (10 percent): Obama 50 McCain 49% Other 1%

Before That (55%): Obama 40% McCain 59% Other 1%

The September and October period is the same time when the Campaign for Change really kicked into gear. It appears those efforts were making a difference. It's an interesting hypothetical to consider what might have been had Obama contested West Virginia in the primary and spent the resources here on advertising and then kept the campaign going here instead of pulling out.

Terri said...

Less than 5,000 voted separate Obama and McCain in Missouri now.

sfergus483 said...

Kos says possible new revised MN Senate numbers in next half hour (Hennepin Co final tally; Minn-St Paul).

(moloo - winners get the moolah, losers get the moloo)

green monkey said...

@mulerider and others

The future GOP. Would like views on where that will go. To me it looks like there are 3 potential core constituencies.

- Centerist Repubs who are much like centerist dems only somewhat to the right on most issues and primarily driven by a pro-business and pro-corporate agenda (heirs of Nixon, perhaps)
- Social Conservatives whose vote is guided greatly by social vision of the US (the people Palin would energize)
- Libertarian-leaners - people with a strong commitment to small govt, low taxes, free markets, and (importantly) a minimalist social agenda.

These constituencies have been in coalition, primarily organized by the first group above, and if Obama does fail significantly, I can see that same coalition regrouping and persisting. But under stress, I could see it breaking down. If Obama is successful, I'm not sure the conservative base is a good place to build a competing party -- this election already saw many of the centrist repubs jumping ship to Obama over Palin. The libertarian platform might be a better foundation to rebuild, but the libertarians and social conservatives have a serious incompatibility over social agenda. For one group it's the most important thing, for the other you specifically leave it out. If you rebuild with libertarians-leaners at the core, do conservatives then go off on their own? If so, you end up, at least for a while, with 2 parties on the right. Doesn't seem like 3 parties is a natural system for American politics, so then what?

susan said...

Missouri!!!

Obama is catching up ...

About topic, Obama is exceptionally charismatic and had almost all the Black vote, so the comparisons are a little ambivalent. That said, certainly there are a lot of new voters who trend Democratic.

Adam Villani said...

If you're looking at Obama's ceiling, in addition to Missouri you should also probably look at Montana, North Dakota, and Georgia, which were all at least possibilities for him to win.

The only one of those I'd put in Hillary's possibility box would be Missouri, but AR, KY, TN, and WV might have gone for her. Maybe. But I don't think there's any way she would have gotten NC, and I think VA, IN, CO, NE-2, and maybe IA would have been tougher.

It would've depended on the Veeps, too. If Hillary had won, I think we'd be talking about our first black Vice President-elect as well as our first female President-elect. But I dunno who McCain would've picked instead of Palin. Jindal to be mavericky? Would he have excited the base? Lieberman to be mavericky? I can't see him getting many people excited.

Ira said...

Obama is the first Democratic President not from the south since Kennedy. Johnson, Carter, and Clinton all carried significant southern support because they themselves were southern.

If Democrats don't need to be sourthern to win anymore, that's a big change.

Glenn said...

HAHAHAHA!!! "Jingoists and xenephobes."

thisniss said...

Why the Atlantic South and the Western pickups that Obama invested in this year matter: not 2008, but 2012. I said all along that GA and NC were brilliant investments, even if all Obama did was narrow the margins - and not just as a "make McCain spend money" strategy.

Why? Because BOTH states are going to have more electoral votes in 2012 than they do now. Right now, GA and NC are the 9th and 10th largest states in the US. That means that both have already passed NJ in population. By 2012, GA will have, and NC may also have passed MI in both population and electoral votes. By 2016, they may each be larger than OH.

This is the future, folks. Population (and EVs) leaving the Rust Belt and New England, and moving to the South Atlantic and Southwest. NC, GA, FL, AZ, NM, NV, and even MT are growing. The focus on blueing those states isn't just a good short-term strategy. Building a solid Democratic base in those states is necessary if we want to stand a chance of winning Congressional majorities and/or electoral college wins over the next twenty years.

Data Guy said...

You can call it the Inland South. Or, you could call it Dumbfuckistan. I prefer Dumbfuckistan. Much more accurate.

KIC said...

You guys HAVE to check out this flash of a new way to do electoral maps. TOO cool.


Talk of the Nation, November 7, 2008 · Mark Newman, professor of physics at the University of Michigan, has a new spin on an old map. He created a program to make cartograms — maps in which states are drawn with their size proportional to their population, rather than their acreage.

Science Friday producer Flora Lichtman talks with Newman about a new generation of electoral maps:

Maps of US to population not geography

mvr said...

I'm not sure you have the Mormon vote placed in the right states in your labeling Utah, Wyoming and Idaho as a "Mormon Belt". I believe that most of Wyoming does not have a high Mormon population, though perhaps southwest Wyoming does. (Most of the population of Wyoming is East, though.) And Arizona has as significant if not more significant Mormon population towards the Northern parts of the state. I don't know about Idaho, but I have never thought of the state as heavily Mormon.

In any case, to the extent that the Mormon religion heavily influences politics in the states mentioned as parts of the "Mormon belt", I think it is mostly in Utah. Of course Mormons have spent money in both California and Nebraska for anti-gay rights initiatives. But in both of those cases it seems not to have been because the states had a lot of Mormon voters.

FWIW. I scanned the comments and could not find anyone else saying this, but I may have missed something . . .

George In Florida said...

@Susan (1:28)

"I do hope and trust that all incidences (like FL Hillsborough) of cheating are being explored and will be exposed regardless of diminished public interest."

There was no cheating in Hillsborough, only incompetence. The only "cheating" I observed (I live in Hillsborough and worked the polls) was by the guy running for County Supervisor of Elections (and he lost). Everything else was fair.

George In Florida said...

RE: Nate's Senate projection of AK:

There was nothing wrong with Nate's model for AK. All the polling data predicted a Stevens loss. Everyone missed this race because the polls were wrong. Since Nate's model uses poll data, how could anyone predict a Stevens win given that set of data???

If people lie to polsters indicating that they won't vote for a convict, and then they do for for him, how are you supposed to predict that?

BTW: AK has not yet been called, since there is still a lot of votes not yet counted. This one is still too close to call.

David said...

Are the red states getting redder and the blue states getting bluer? Is the country getting increasingly geographically polarized? To some extent the swing states are changing and some states have changed allegiance, which means that (current) blue states tend to be bluer than they were 16 years ago, and (current) red states tend to be redder than they were 16 years ago just because of the changes.

However, if you just look at states that were the same color in both races, almost without exception the red states have gotten redder and the blue states bluer. To me, this indicates that the politics in this country are becoming increasingly geographically polarized.

SlipperySlope said...

To maintain momentum in the electoral realignment, Obama and the Democrats should not provide an opening for conservative candidates in swing areas. Assuming that conservative principles are not mutually exclusive with Democratic goals, I suggest the following:

(1) Congress should enact reasonable regulations to preclude another asset bubble.

(2) Bailouts should be designed to return a profit for the taxpayer.

(3) Congress should achieve fiscal restraint in the period after the economy recovers from the current recession.

(4) Strengthen the US military with respect to defending our borders, but otherwise avoid foreign entanglements beyond Al-Queda.

(5) Congress should reduce taxes on the middle class.

(6) Congress should not create any new restriction on individual liberty, including 2nd amendment rights.

(7) Congress should not enact policies that greatly irritate Christian conservatives. For example, I believe that eventually gay marriage will be a US Supreme Court issue and Obama should nominate judges that will eventually deal with that issue.

susan said...

@GeorgeinFlorida
Thanks for the clarification, I will take that off my list. I read about the official you mentioned while it was happening but didn't realize it was an isolated incident. It's hard not to remember what happened in 2000 (and possibly to a lesser extent in 04); thanks for being such a standup guy.

@JudasPriest
Thanks for info on my backwards quote and learned reference! It seemed so apposite about the difficulties in undoing Gitmo, etc. etc. I'm in Boston too ...

Dan said...

I've been noticing the same thing recently - the Republicans are increasingly confined as a Southern regional party (and the Christian conservatives who dominate much of the GOP are unappealing outside the South). If we take states won by Gore and Kerry as the Democratic base, then add New Mexico, Colorado and perhaps Virginia (which keeps becoming more Democratic and less Southern as its demography changes), the Democrats can win even WITHOUT Florida and Ohio, and can win landslides when they do have FL and OH.
The only way for Republicans to counteract this trend is for them to nominate more moderate candidates, especially on social issues. I don't think the folks who forced Sarah Palin on John McCain (who wanted to run with his old friend Joe Lieberman, but the Christian Right threatened a floor fight) will give up easily.
A few years ago, Karl Rove was boasting of having confined the Democrats to a few regions in the Northeast and West Coast, now, with the remarkable geographic scope of Barack Obama's victory and Democratic gains everywhere from the Senate to state legislatures, it appears that the opposite may be true - the Republicans are essentially a Southern regional party!
Someone PLEASE explain to me how Republican Jim Douglas keeps getting reelected governor of VERMONT, of all places, though. As a liberal Vermont Democrat, I just can't understand why we can't get rid of this guy (he's a somewhat moderate Republican, but not that moderate - he pointedly stayed a Republican and chaired Bush's re-election effort in the state when Jim Jeffords turned independent). 67.4% of us voted for Barack Obama, but 55% voted for Douglas. Yes, it was a three-way race, but the other two candidates put together didn't come close to Douglas' vote total. Apart from Douglas, Republicans are essentially extinct here - every county voted for Obama, only four of our 253 towns went for McCain (no town that went for McCain had more than 200 voters)! Both houses of our state legislature have 2/3 Democratic majorities... Who are all these mysterious Obama-Douglas voters????

Alan said...

I echo those who object to Missouri's being lumped in with the "inland South". If you look at that NY Times trend map (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/11/05/us/politics/20081104_ELECTION_RECAP.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink), you can see that on a county-by-county basis, there is one major contiguous "inland South" region that is trending more Republican (along with a smaller Gulf Coast area in southern Louisiana and the adjacent portion of Texas). It is most intense in Arkansas, but is stopped almost perfectly at the Missouri border (aside from a couple far southeastern counties where it "spills over"). Most Missouri counties are trending blue compared to 2004.

I think comparisons to '92 are limited by the presence of Perot on the ticket: Obama has gotten more votes in Missouri (in absolute terms and percentagewise) than Clinton did.

-Alan

kurt said...

@mvr - I don't think you followed the road to 270 graphs that closely.

South Idaho is the second most populated Mormon area in the country by population. North Idaho (minus the skinheads) is actually very progressive.. similar I think to the emerging Colorado demographic.

I disagree completely with Mule Head. California may not be gaining EV's outright.. but the California mentality is spreading to the enitre SW region. Oregon (my homestate) is entirely out of play.

Social Conservatives are the death of the GOP. Period. This country is not center-right.. that is just real america spin.

Look with is aking o the streets these days... blacks? no.. gays.

There is no turning back. :)

The Key Grip said...

Fascinating analysis -- as always! -- but I would like to point out that the map, at least, is artificially slanted toward the red end of the spectrum, since Clinton's win percentages in places like Colorado (which looks almost bleach-white on this map) were artificially aided by the candidacy of H. Ross Perot.

Emily said...

What might it mean if Texas elected a Democratic Governor in 2010? The Houston mayor, Democrat Bill White, won his 3rd term with 86% of the vote last year, and is term limited now. There's talk he'll run for Gov in 2010 and he just might be able to turn Texas blue. People LOVE him here.

Just think what a blue Texas would do to that EC map...

Bill White for President 2020!!

AfWilliams said...

As a life-long Missouri resident, I have to take exception with your assessment of the Show-Me state having turned into a "lean Republican" state which is "quickly losing its 'bellweather' status."

McCain "won" Missouri with a measly 6000 votes this election. A handful of the electoral maps out there still have Missouri colored in grey, and labeled as "too close to call."

What has made Missouri such a bell-weather state is that it is so evenly divided between Red and Blue... this election was no different. But, if you look at the outcome of this election in comparison to 2004, it was clearly trending blue. Bush won by 200,000 votes on '04, and Obama was able to close that gap to a very narrow strip of 6000 votes.

I believe that if Obama does well in his first term, Missouri will be blue in 2012, and will still be the most accurate state in the union in predicting our President.

qwerty said...

I have been watching the last part of your presidential race and the results and I think I understand your electoral system (which most people outside the US find hard). Everytime I showed somebody the electoral map they would say: McCain must be winning, since most of the map is red!

Well I did a few numbers today and, yes, if territory ad been the decidind factor, the GOP would have won. Obama won 28 stats plus DC, McCain won 22. But the 22 states cover 61% of the territory, while the 28 only cover 39%. No wonder the map looked red.

Jua, from Mexico

Caoimhin Laochdha said...

This list needs to include Vermont.

In the space of two administrations, Vermont has swung from reliably GOP to reliably DEM.

In 1992, Clinton won a plurality in VT. This was the first time, ever, (i.e. ever as in 1792-1992) a Democrat won Vermont with the exception of the Johnson landslide in '64.

H.W.Bush won Vermont in '88 and Reagan, Ford, Nixon('72, '68 & '60) all won Vermont easily and several times ('84/'80/'72/) w/landslide numbers.

In 1988, Dukakis wrote off Vermont and Bush 41 took it for granted because it was reliably Republican. In 1992, it was not until after Labor Day that Clinton saw that Vermont was in play and made a run for it.

Clinton & the Dems winning in Vermont in 1992 was a milestone and Gore breaking 50% in 2000 was another milestone.

Vermont has a well deserved reputation for being a liberal state. It wasn't until 2000, however, that this played out at the Presidential level.

In the space of two - Clinton/Bush - administrations, Vermont has swung from reliably GOP to reliably DEM.

sláinte,
cl

qwerty said...

Continued.

I also found that the 28 states + DC Obama won have 69% of the population, while McCain's 22 only have 31%! If the 538 EVs were distributed according to that, Obama should have had 372.3 EVs, while McCain would have 165.7.

This brings me to the point: It looks to me, a perfect stranger, that your system gives advantage to the smaller (or least populated) states. I looked at it and yes, McCain won 5 out of the 8 states (and DC) with 3 EVs, 7 of 13 states with 4-6 EVs, and 7 of 13 states with 7 to 10 EVs. Obama won 6 of 9 states wih 11-15 EVs and 6 of 7 states with over 15 EVs, the well known exception being Texas.

As I learned how your system works, it seemed to be very fair: the want-to-be-president had to win not only the most (popular) votes, but had to win a majority of votes in a combination of states representing the majority of population. Well, I am not sure of that anymore. I have not done the numbers, but it looks to me that Bush`s victory in 2000 could have been because he won a group of over represented states?

KQuark said...

The Perot effect is what limited Bill Clinton's mandate. Bill Clinton never won a majority vote and that limited his power severely. The EC map did not matter because trolls used Clinton's plurality only victory to successfully obstruct much of his presidency. To trolls they rationalized that if Perot did not run in 1992 Bush would have won.

Miquel said...

I think Missouri is still a swing state and will fall into the Obama column come 2012. The fact that it was this close this long means its up for grabs still.

信次 said...

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套,G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,生日精品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票號碼,夜市,統一發票對獎,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解,av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情, 股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上掃毒,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,火車,房屋,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套, G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,精品,禮品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票,夜市,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解, av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av ,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情,股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上a片,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,借錢,房屋,街頭籃球,找工作,旅行社,六合彩,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家公司,中和搬家,台北搬家,板橋搬家,新店搬家,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,交友,越南新娘,婚友社,外籍新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,交友,外籍新娘,視訊聊天,大陸新娘,婚友社,婚友,越南新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,視訊交友,外籍新娘,網路排名,網路排名軟體,網站排名優化大師,關鍵字排名大師,網站排名seo大師,關鍵字行銷專家,關鍵字,seo,關鍵字行銷,網頁排序,網頁排名,關鍵字大師,seo大,自然排名,網站排序,網路行銷創業,汽車借款,汽車借錢,汽車貸款,汽車貸款,拉皮,抽脂,近視雷射,隆乳,隆鼻,變性,雙眼皮,眼袋,牙齒,下巴,植牙,人工植牙,植髮,雷射美容,膠原蛋白,皮膚科,醫學美容,玻尿酸,肉毒桿菌,微晶瓷,電波拉皮,脈衝光,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,英語演講,托福,Toastmaster,

平平 said...

^^ nice blog!! ^@^

徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇

徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社,

徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,

徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信,

平平 said...

^^ very nice

徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,

徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,

徵信 said...

外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇


外遇 外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇外遇
外遇

外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 ,
外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇

外遇 外遇

外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿喜帖囍帖卡片外遇外遇 外遇 外遇外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇 外遇 外遇剖析 外遇調查 外遇案例 外遇諮詢 偷情 第三者外遇話題 外遇發洩 感情挽回 徵信社 外遇心態 外遇 通姦 通姦罪 外遇徵信社徵信社外遇 外遇 抓姦徵信協會徵信公司 包二奶 徵信社 徵信 徵信社 徵信社 徵信社 徵信社 徵信 徵信 婚姻 婚前徵信 前科 個人資料 外遇 第三者 徵信社 偵探社 抓姦 偵探社 偵探社婚 偵探社 偵探社偵探家事服務家事服務家電維修家事服務家事服務家事服務家事服務家事服務持久持久持久持久持久持久持久離婚網頁設計徵信社徵信社徵信徵信社外遇離婚協議書劈腿持久持久持久持久持久劈腿剖析徵信徵信社外遇外遇外遇外遇徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社

freefun0616 said...

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,

,