As the Republican Party regroups and reassesses its electoral strategy, it's important to understand what happened in the Mountain West. Electorally, the emergence of the Mountain West as a true swing region puts backbreaking pressure on the Republican Party to nominate presidential candidates who appeal to moderates and independents.
Let's take a look at what happened in the eight Mountain West states, including John McCain's home state of Arizona. What was one election cycle ago a whitewash region for Republicans has morphed into a true swing region. Consider that heading into the 2004 elections, Republicans held 33 of 44 Congressional seats and swept all 44 electoral votes. After 2008, Republicans hold 20 of 44 seats in Congress and essentially split the Mountain West, winning 25-19 in the electoral vote tally.
John McCain essentially repeated the Bush vote in the Mountain West. Overall, McCain won 99.14% of Bush's total, dropping less than one percent.
So what happened? While those who argue that the excitement of the first black candidate on a national ticket inspired millions of new voters in places like North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida, that's not an easy answer in the Mountain West, which is mostly rural and has few African-Americans.
Barack Obama created nearly 900,000 new voters, through both a strong message and pounding shoe leather of his vast and talented organizing force. These organizers held single-minded focus on voter registration. Voter registration in huge leaps like we saw in Nevada, Pennsylvania and Virginia doesn't happen on its own.
(While ACORN became a bitter complaint down the home stretch of the campaign, nobody who can be taken seriously believes this was an issue or in any way relates to this voter registration surge. If I work for ACORN and choose to defraud that employer so that they pay me an extra five bucks for registering "Mickey Mouse," I haven't cryogenically created Mickey Mouse in a lab somewhere who then goes and votes. I do it because I want the extra ACORN cash. ACORN, in turn, is legally obligated to turn in all voter registration forms it collects, even ones it segregates out as highly suspect.)
On the Republican side of the coin, during our trip across America in the final eight weeks of the campaign to chronicle each campaign's field program, we routinely encountered an attitude from Republicans that made us think: cruise control. They simply didn't believe -- and told us directly -- that Obama would create the new voters needed.
The machine Republicans have built up over the years, integrated with what was once a strong technological edge that has now evaporated, essentially worked in the Mountain West. While Republicans probably didn't hit their vote goals in the Mountain West (vote goals are generally set ambitiously high), the story in the region is how the West was won by Obama and the Democratic candidates, not lost by McCain and Republican candidates.
This conclusion, at least regionally, comes at a time when "the now-established consensus is that Obama did very well in getting out his vote; but his 7 point margin of victory was largely accomplished by former Republican voters staying home."
As a result of the Mountain West swing, the region-wide Bush-Kerry gap of 14.82% and 1,177,675 votes dropped to 263,062 votes and only 2.98% between McCain and Obama. The closest state that matches this gap is Montana, which McCain won by 2.26%.
Even in McCain's home state of Arizona, Obama gained nearly 16% on John Kerry's total. The Obama-McCain margin there (McCain by 8.52%) was lower than the Bush-Kerry margin (Bush by 10.47%) by nearly two percent. Even where McCain improved on Bush in the Mountain West, Obama improved more.
To take comfort in the theory that "you can only vote to elect the first black president once," as one of the great hacks would prefer to hope, such wishful thinking doesn't work in the Mountain West, where Obama's success cannot be attributed to high black turnout. John McCain won more voters in Colorado and Nevada than John Kerry, but McCain wasn't even close against Obama in those states.
In Nevada and New Mexico, new voter registration numbers were 5-7 times the losing 2004 presidential margins of 21,500 and 5,988 respectively. Obama won in Nevada by a hair under 120,000 votes and over 12%, and New Mexico by over 125,000 and over 15%. With the new voter registrations, those states can be considered blue until further notice.
Those ten electoral votes are roughly balanced by the twelve from Wyoming, Utah and Idaho that Republicans have on lockdown. Montana is the closest state, which Obama lost by 2.26%. Colorado (Obama +8.95%) and Arizona (McCain +8.52%) are mirrors of each other, though without McCain on the ballot it seems clear that state would have been much, much closer.
How can we be sure of that? There are 281 counties in the Mountain West, and 266 outside of Arizona. Although Obama only improved on the Kerry-Bush margin in 7 of 15 counties in Arizona, still quite an accomplishment in his opponent's home turf, he improved on the Kerry-Bush margin in a staggering 265 of 266 counties in the other seven states. The only county that regressed? Wyoming's second smallest county, Hot Springs, where McCain improved on Bush's margin by a minuscule 0.22%. This is a tiny oil and gas county that produced 2,480 votes in 2004 and only 2,546 in 2008.
Obama improved the D:R margin in all 64 Colorado counties, all 56 Montana counties, all 44 Idaho counties, all 33 New Mexico counties, all 29 Utah counties, all 17 Nevada counties, and 22 of 23 Wyoming counties.
In the two Mountain West states we can safely say are now structurally Democratic given voter registration totals (Nevada and New Mexico), Obama improved by double digits in 43 of those states' 50 counties. Half of those 50 counties drew 10,000 votes and above, and Obama improved by double digits in 23 of 25 of those.
(One of those two outliers was Nye County, Nevada, where we encountered one of the few obvious Republican organizer readers of FiveThirtyEight, and Obama only failed to improve on the Kerry-Bush margin by double digits because McCain improved on Bush by 12.35%, McCain's best county improvement outside of Arizona aside from tiny Sublette County, Wyoming).
Moreover, Obama won 66 counties outright, an improvement by 25 counties over Kerry. Stunningly, Obama won Salt Lake County, Utah by 296 votes. He also flipped Summit and Grand counties in 2004's all-red Beehive State. Obama flipped Washoe and Carson City in Nevada. Obama flipped Albany County, Wyoming and two counties in Idaho, Latah and Teton. In Colorado, while McCain held Garfield County (Glenwood Springs) by two votes and Chaffee County (Salida) by 13 votes, Obama flipped Denver's suburban Broomfield County, as well as Alamosa and Huerfano counties in south central Colorado, and Ouray County on the Western Slope.
In New Mexico, Obama flipped Sandoval and Valencia counties to the north and south of Albuquerque, as well as adjoining Los Alamos County. He flipped Colfax County in the northeast and Luna and Hidalgo counties in the southwest of New Mexico. Finally, Obama flipped seven Montana counties, including Gallatin (Bozeman), Cascade (Great Falls), and Lewis and Clark (Helena). Obama also flipped Lake, Hill, Rosebud and Blaine counties, in no small part because Native voters turned out.
Though Obama didn't win Montana, that state has clearly shifted back from an all-red enclave. Given the success of Brian Schweitzer, Jon Tester, and Obama's dramatic gap-closing vote gains in Montana, it's clear that the Democratic Party brand as a whole has made dramatic gains in what is now the swing region's swing state.
Given all the foregoing, it's time to bring around the point we made at the outset, about how the Mountain West shift breaks the back of Republican base presidential candidacies.
Consider the electoral advantages Democrats hold elsewhere. Democrats have strong holds on the following: 77 EVs on the Pacific Coast (CA, OR, WA, HI), 117 EVs in the Northeast (ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, DE, PA, MD, DC) and 65 EVs in the Upper Midwest (MI, WI, MN, IA, IL), accounting for 259 electoral votes.
It's hard to quibble with states on that list, as far as being susceptible to a Republican running for the presidency who doesn't strongly appeal to moderates and at least some Democrats. Maybe Iowa, where Bush won in 2004, but that state has seen a shift to Democratic voting in 2006 and 2008. Though Pennsylvania has been considered a swing state in recent cycles, that can be put to rest with this election, which saw a blowout win by Obama and a structural edge of 52% registration. The other Upper Midwest states proved easy Democratic wins.
Given that Democrats have broken through and are in clear control along partisan registration lines in Nevada and New Mexico, those ten electoral votes put the Democratic candidate at a minimum tie, with one more EV needed for a clear win. Republicans could even regain Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Indiana, North Carolina, Colorado and Omaha, Nebraska and still lose the presidency.
If Republicans want to draw some kind of conclusion that they're on the rebound given Louisiana House seats and Georgia's expected victory, which we put at 88% likelihood before November 4, it may delay the urgency to revamp the party so that it can compete nationally in places like Colorado and Michigan. That denial is unequivocally good for Democrats. The Chambliss victory in Georgia disguises the fact that nationally, at the presidential level, the Republican base is too small and generates too few electoral votes. Republican lockup of the Plains, Deep South and Appalachia just isn't enough. Republicans can't simply point fingers at the media and insist it was all Obama favoritism and ACORN, a refrain we heard from Republican phonebankers -- where they existed -- coast to coast.
It's uncomfortable to play the concern troll role of declaring what Republicans need to do to fix their party. That's for the party and its members to decide. But we can point out that Obama won 283 electoral votes by 9 points or more, and 263 by double digits. As the Mountain West shows, coming to the conclusion that Obama 2008 was a perfect storm that will pass ignores the reality of the massive voter registration edges that storm leaves behind in places like Pennsylvania and Nevada.
Moreover, Republicans are on the losing end of the age and racial demographic shifts. Young voters and Latinos went overwhelmingly for Democrats. First time voters tend to brand themselves to one party, and that's nothing but good news for Democrats. Folks like Michael Barone will continue to write pieces about how the kids won't show up in the future, and Democrats should encourage that kind of straw-grasping. Democrats have caught up in the field program technology that gave Republicans a kind of false comfort in at least a several-point field turnout cushion.
The attitude was, "until you knock us out, the champ is the champ." Well, consider 2008 a knockout.
12.10.2008
The Mountain West: America's New Swing Region
by Sean Quinn @ 9:32 AM...see also 2008 post-mortem, mountain west
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

87 comments
First!
statler waldorf, this site was cool before you sunk your stupid troll teeth into it. why don't you piss off and die?
very nice analysis!
It's true -- the republicans claiming they're on the rebound because of the GA victory is a lot like if dems did the same for a victory in NJ or CT.
How will the EV count change after the census? I expect the NorthEast, MidAtlantic, and Upper MidWest to lose votes. Some will go to the Republican south (others to the Pacific Coast and Mountain West). Will the Democrats still have a "lock" on 270 (after subtracting OH, FL, NC, VA, IN, etc)? Of course if the Republicans pick a moderate (or the economy is in the tank) then that lock is probably "open".
I am not so sure this is 100% true. It implies that the mountain West is doing something the rest of thecountry is not. The mountain west is bluer, but so is the midwest, and even the northest is all blue now, at all levels of government.
Sure, the mountain west is bluer, so is the country.
A real post needs to be made on the south - the wacky place that is still out of touch with the country and stuck somewhere near Civil War levels of inclusiveness.
I don't know other Coloradans voted for Barack, but I [honky, 60] can say why I did:
1. John was/is too old. The job of POTUS ages one horribly.
2. We Baby Boomers had our turn with Bill and George and it is time to hand it over to a new, younger generation.
3. Sarah is an "ignorant slut".
4. Electing someone who is 1/2-black will, hopefully, reduce some of the victimization cries coming from Denver's black community.
5. Even though Barack is too far to the left for me, I wanted a change from the Shrub.
I agree that it's the margin of victory that should be worrying for Republicans. John Kerry was a rather weak candidate who met a lot of goodwill from the electorate. He still almost managed to win, although he reduced the Democratic advantage in several states, that were supposed to be swing states in 2008, down to the minimum (Wisconsin, Pennsylvania). The Kerry states have to be considered the absolute base of Democratic candidates in our time. And Obama won all of them by double-digits (except from NH by 9,5%). And so I also agree that Nevada, New Mexico and Iowa have to be regarded as blue states now, because of Obama's margin. The only way the Republicans can stop this development is by winning over a large percentage of Latinos, or Arizona will become a swing-state in 2012.
There might be a small tactical advantage for the Republicans though, the 2010 caucus. Republicans might gain a few EV in the south and midwest, forcing Obama to win more than Kerry+IA+NM+NV+CO.
P.S.:Cut the First!-crap.
Well, I'm kinda hoping for the Brian Schweitzer effect.
Montana, much like the rest of the upper mountain west, used to be solid GOP territory, along with North Dakota. Folks up there used to use the word Democrat as if it were a slur in and of itself; but, after Governor Schwietzer and Senator Dorgan's highly popular terms in office, we can say that the area has warmed up a little to the idea of electing Democrats.
My hope is that after eight years of good governance on the part of the Obama administration, folks in many similar pockets of this country that have for too long been trapped in the right-wing echo chamber of Faux News and Talk Radio, will be able to see with their own eyes what a responsible, competent Democratic regime looks like. Hopefully, they will be impressed enough to try it again in 2016.
Unlike the GOP, which relies on some fairly manipulative techniques to win votes, such as fear mongering, Karl-Rove style divide-and-conquer politics, we want you to see for yourself what Democrats are really like. You can make your own mind up about us after that.
I wonder how Arizona will turn out in 2012. It's always been more red than CO, but not by that much. All the polls showed Obama closing the gap, but McCain still won by 8%. I guess they didn't want to hurt McCain's feelings in the end or something.
Since Janet is now in Obama's cabinet, I doubt she'll be taking on McCain in 2010. However, she can still take on Kyl in 2012, who is not anywhere near as popular as McCain is. So if Napolitano was beating McCain in polls, then she should crush Kyl with ease. That would be excellent because he is one of the few leaders left in the GOP congress.
Something bad is happening in rural America that doesn't grow corn for ethanol and is in boom times. The rest of rural America is running scared.
Populists like Bernie Sanders in Vermont and Brian Switzer in Montana are gaining mass support because of their clear talk.
Up here in Vermont, Bernie carries very very heavy vote totals in Republican counties that favored Bush. He carries over 30% of all self-professed conservatives in Vermont.
Would such out and out populism work in North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming and Nebraska. That's uncertain. It's never really been tried in those states. It certainly works in rural Montana and rural Vermont.
Until the GOP dumps the country club branch over the deep end with their tax cuts for the richest of the rich, populism from GOP candidates is farcical.
You say that McCain got 99.14% of Bush's vote, and that Obama's improvement was due to getting new voters. True enough, but such figures should be adjusted for population growth, as some expansion of the number of voters should happen more or less automatically. After all, if the Mountain West had today's population in 2004, the Bush vote would have been larger.
Viewed like this, I expect your point will still be valid, although I would imagine that one would discover that McCain only held on to 92 or 93 percent of the Bush vote. (Just a guess, I have no idea how fast the population is growing in the west).
I think parts of this post may go a bit too far.
First of all, the Mountain West and Obama's registration operation. The Mountain West is experiencing fairly rapid population growth. So McCain holding even with Bush's raw numbers is clearly a loss in percentage, even if the turnout fraction had stayed the same. Next, throw out Arizona, as a home state. Put that together, and it's quite clear that demographics which voted for Bush in 2004 voted for Obama in 2008--swing voters were probably as important as new voters in the overall victory.
That doesn't change the basic point that the region is becoming structurally bluer, of course.
Then, the list of "strong hold" states in other regions doesn't seem entirely convincing. Two of those states are pretty "maverick-y": New Hampshire and Minnesota. States like that vote for candidates, not parties, and for that reason can produce lopsided wins that can quickly be reversed. (What can you say about a state that elected Coleman to replace Wellstone?) Michigan is so messed up that either party has the potential to tap into anger there.
New Hampshire you may be right, especially because there's so many independents, but Minnesota? That's been a Dem stronghold forever, it's the only state Reagan DIDN'T win. The only reason people like Coleman and Pawlenty win elections is because the Independence Party siphons away votes from the Democrat.
SarahLawrenceScott said...
(What can you say about a state that elected Coleman to replace Wellstone?)
That the alternative was Mondale? Wellstone wasn't replaced; he died.
This election was about the economy while 2004 was about national security. If national security becomes the center issue again in 2012 I wonder how the West will vote then. My guess is given the strong 2nd amendment support throughout the mountain west we'll see support shift back to the republicans - hopefully Obama will change this dynamic.
Sir Sean said:
"...It's uncomfortable to play the concern troll role of declaring what Republicans need to do to fix their party..."
###########
then don't do it dear Sean.
it's so good to have you on the democratic side of the river.
good post.
congratulation.
;)
Vinny & Scott,
I am happy to report from New Hampshire (again) that:
Yesterday the Secretary of State's office released the most current voter registration numbers. For the first time since New Hampshire instituted party registration, Democrats now out-number Republicans in the Granite State.
The rolls currently stand at 393,899 Undeclared voters, 280, 968 Democrats and 278,060 Republicans. This means that since the 2002 election, Democratic voter registration has increased by over 104 thousand people, while Republicans picked up merely 24 thousand new registrants.
Kennyb said...
Vinny & Scott,
I am happy to report from New Hampshire (again) that:
Democrats now out-number Republicans in the Granite State.
#############
this is a great news for John McCain ...and Mule Rider !!!!!!!!!
:P
Not only can Democrats only elect the first black president once, they can only run against George Bush's Republican Party once.
Bush's popularity was below 30 for a good portion of the election. Let's talk about structural shifts if and when the Democrats win the mid-term elections.
Bah! The Mountain West is not "mostly rural." In fact, it's the most urban region in the country. There's a lot of rural land in the West, but hardly anyone lives out there.
Your math is wrong: The Northeast states you listed account for only 117 EVs, making the total Dem locks outside the Mountain West 259 (it looked suspicious, because 264 was always the total during the campaign of Kerry states + IA + NM, and this doesn't include NM). Add in NM and NV and you get an exact tie at 269. And yeah, the EV changes after the Census are also going to push things around...
Back to Blago, ABC reports that law enforcement confirms that Jesse Jackson Jr. is "Senate Candidate No. 5". Now the question is whether he was agreeing to pay 500K for the seat or agreeing to assist in raising 500K for the seat, and whether that is a distinction without a difference.
Is rural based on the percentage of rural land, the percentage of people living outside of cities, or or the population density overall?
Well, we did win a mid term election already, in 2006, which was largely a repudiation of the Iraq War. The problem is that you refused to pay attention to the electorate when it spoke.
Listen, this was not just a vote against Bush and for Obama; it,s also a vote against what Bush stands for and for what Obama stands for.
Do you really think in a country with a racist history going back over 500 years would vote for a man only because he is black? The truth is, alot of people voted against him because he is black. More people voted for him because of who he is personally.
Barack Obama is not the Black President. He's the American President. And he is your President. Just as we on the left had to accept the decision to elect Bush in 2004, even though we didn't like it, so you have to accept the decision in 2008.
Stop making pathetic excuses for yourself. Next thing you know, you'll be walking up to a homeless one-legged blind Black lesbian screaming about how she's "the Man" and it's so unfair that thsi country discriminates against rich male heterosexual WASPs.
There is no "Cortez County" anywhere in New Mexico. I assume you are referring to Colfax County, which Obama took by 11% despite the fact that this county is the home of the NRA's huge Whittington Center.
Given the results in MT, parts of ID, and UT, not to mention AZ, it is a shame that Obama didn't have the guts to go into these states and campaign hard.
That is the only reason he lost MT and AZ, and why ID and UT were not much closer. Given the embarrassment that was Palin, he might have flipped AK if he had made an effort there.
If he had made a true 50 state effort, Obama could have made ID and UT true swing states, leaving the republican party a insignificant regional party. Then in 2010 and 2012 work on flipping TX, MO, ND, SD, UT, ID, and WV, rendering the 'pubs dead.
I find more subtleties in contined demographic shifts helping to explain Obam's success in the Rockies.
Some of these flips in small Mountain West counties are in what I would call "ski counties," where new wealthier residents have moved, even since 2004. We saw more blue counties in ski country in Colorado in 2004 than 2000, so the trend continues.
In 2004 Kerry carried Sun Valley's county in Idaho, and Jackson Hole's county in Wyoming, and several ski counties in the mountains of Colorado.
In Utah I would attribute the flip of Summit County to more open-to-Democrat voters in Park City. Also Moab's county went Obama, and that might be more and more non-Mormon, non-Republican mountain bikers there.
The Obama win in Salt Lake County of course is aided by great Obama organizing, but remember that Salt Lake City proper is majority non-Mormon, and re-elects a Democrat to the House every two years.
I'd be curious to know what degree the Mountain West's newfound "swinginess" is the result of migrants from the old swing region, the Midwest.
Anecdotally, there's a lot of them. Can't find recent stats though. Maybe the next census will clear this up.
Ron Paul's name on the MT ballot messes up a lot of these kinds of calculations. You should add his vote totals in to McCain's for a 2012 predictive model, assuming he's done running for president after this year.
Good news is Nader will probably fold up his tent, too, as he'll be 79 in 2012.
-Jeff
@Statler N Waldorf
Ease off, you're writing like you know me.
I canvassed for Obama, and I helped get the vote out in previously disenfranchised minority areas.
I saw how excited people were to vote for Obama, and it translated into significantly increased minority turnout.
Same thing goes for age demographics: Obama's not a boomer, so all of us young folks were excited about the opportunity to elect someone who's younger than our parents.
What I'm saying is that it's too early to start talking about a permanent shift. Obama's success was built on a lot of things, but some of those things only really work once.
Remember the Republicans and their "permanent majority"? Lets not count our chickens before they've hatched.
It might be interesting to see how this changes given the likely electoral college changes after the 2010 Census.
It isn't just success in registering the new voters, it is also turning them out. That's the part folks on the other side assumed could not be done.
And getting as many of those votes as possible in the bank ahead of election day through early vote, so election day chaos and lines wouldn't discourage these new voters from participating.
Vote for Change (the registration drive) was essential to these margins, I suspect, but not sufficient without the other elements of the field strategy.
The other brilliant thing VFC did was build and maintain volunteer organizing capacity - it gave everyone something to do right away over the summer. Teams started during the primaries in the spring could keep working together, without needing a huge amount of staff support.
So in a sense, the registration drive both created a lot of new potential voters and helped create a stronger infrastructure to turn them out later.
I think the claim that Democrats can only elect the first black president once is somewhat relevant to 2016, but then again, they can also elect the first female president once.
There are a lot of subtle shifts for this region, in-migration being one of them. Don't forget that the Mountain West is getting significantly Californicated...which leaves one wondering if/how/when CA might become vulnerable again.
Texas was a low double-digit victory for Obama, and the part of the state that is really part of the Mountain West, El Paso and surroundings, went dark blue, much like neighboring New Mexico. I think if Democrats pursue greater voter registration campaigns in far west and south Texas, where there are masses of unregistered hispanic voters, and in Texas cities, where the same is true, Texas could become THE swing state of 2012 and 2016.
It will just take concerted effort and funding to make the program happen. I hope the national party takes notice.
Also, a concerted effort to campaign and register voters up and down the valley of the Red River of the North -- which is the border for MN and the Dakotas -- could easily net the D's enough votes to flip the Dakotas next round and hold onto mildly-wacky MN, which underperformed for the D's this cycle just a tad.
Jim,
that would make sense if Obama had run as the Black President. He didn't. He ran as everybody's President
I have to second (or third, or fourth, etc.) the comments about the growth of the mountain west states. If the census estimates are about right, most of them grew around 5% or so from 2003-2007, and Nevada, Utah, and Arizona were closer to 10% or so. (This may not be accurate enough to change the analysis much, but does seem something to look for)
Also, a quick estimation I did gives republicans a 4 electoral vote gain in their strong states vs. democratic strong states, (though I was pretty much "guesstimating" on which ones are "strong" states, did not consider swing state changes, and a different census estimate will also may give a different electoral vote change). It still seems that the strong democrat states contain a lot more EV's than the strong republican states.
I just want to reinforce illissius' post above: the total EV in the Northeast is not 122, it's 117.
So the total of the Northeast, Midwest and West is 117 + 65 + 77 = 259. 10 EV's from NM and NV thus give 269 EV's total or a tie in the Electoral College. The 2010 census will probably diminish the Northeast and Midwest some, and increase the West a bit, likely benefitting the Republicans a bit in 2012 and afterwards.
The Mountain West is not "rural." That's a popular misconception because of the big wide open spaces here. In the West we have some of the most urban-oriented populations in the country.
The reason that is possible in land areas so big is that most of the open spaces are too mountainous to build on, or are federally-owned National Forests and BLM land. If you consider the smaller areas left over where people actually live, the states have a higher population density than other states outside the region.
The Denver Metro Area contains more than half of the population of Colorado. That doesn't include municipalities like Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, Grand Junction and Pueblo.
Have you ever been to Vail? It's like a gigantic downtown area of mid-rises in the bottom of a canyon butting up directly against mountains and trees. If you wanted to build a "suburban" community you'd be putting it on top of a cliff.
Las Vegas and suburbs have something like 70 percent of Nevada's population, since more than 85 percent of the open lands outside Las Vegas are owned by the federal government.
You have similar situations going on in Arizona and New Mexico. That's an important cultural factor when you're considering how Democrats are holding their own in Western states even though do awful in "rural" areas.
Drive through the East or Midwest and you find every acre of land has a home or farm on it; thats the "rural" population. Drive through the West and you find nobody for miles and miles, then a dense little town.
EC changes likley in 2011:
Lose 1 - IA, NY, IL, MA, MI, maybe MO
Gain 1 - NV, CA, TX, maybe AZ
Gain 1 or 2 - FL
IA loses a GOP district (Latham will have to run against either King or a Dem and lose) NY may lose a GOP district, but probably not. MI definitely loses a GOP district, MA must lose a Dem district due to them all being Dem. MO could lose a GOP district if Dems can make more state leg gains. Gains in NV and CA should be Dem, but other gains will be GOP, given whom is in control of the State Legislatures and Governorships in each state involved. This has nothing to do with the EC, though, just control of the House. I see a 2-4 EV redshift coming out of the next Census at max, though. Still puts the Obama double-digit win states at at least 265 Electors, necessitating a CO win. (This figure includes IA and NH as "core Obama" states) I'd like to see a district break-down on the ME vote on this site, btw, so I can be sure of Obama's MoV in both CDs.
-Jeff
For a bunch of stat-heads, you guys (Icky excepted) are sure willing to accept gestalt and guesstimating about future Electoral College vote shifts.
Here's something to chew on that has a little more substance, from William Frey at the Brookings Institution. By his esitmate, the 2008 election run in 2030 would have Obama finishing 9 electoral votes lower than his current total.
The big swing states will be Arizona, Florida and maybe Texas. Of course, as most of the emmigration comes from the Northeast, one would expect that much of the population growth in Arizona, Florida, and Texas to turn them more blue/less red. I think we see that already to some degree.
http://www.frey-demographer.org/reports/BROOK2005.pdf
Here's a census site with details on my last comment.
http://www.nemw.org/poprural.htm
Colorado's "rural" population is 15.5 percent of the state. By comparison, the State of New York is 12.5 percent rural. Both are well below the national average.
Nevada is only 8.4 percent rural, far less than Illinois and New York!
Arizona is 11.8 percent rural and Utah is 11.7 percent rural. Compare that to Ohio at 22.7 percent or Virginia at 27.0 percent!
Hey, thanks for excepting me KennyB.
I am doing some "guesstimating" of my own here, but I am a former US Census worker from 2000. (I was a student with a need for a summer job - shoulda worked for Gore in FL, I guess).
As an Iowan, though, I must say that the Jerrymandering in FL, AZ and TX are perfect examples of odium and perfidy. We in IA use an independent committee to redistrict after every census, and our system is widely accepted as the most fair. I just happen to know the most likely way in which IA will be re-drawn in 2.5 yrs and I know where rep Tom Latham's house is located, necessitating that he either move or run against another Republican in a primary to represent Western IA, which will be the last GOP district in the state after we lose one.
As far as the EC is concerned, though, Obama won't have much to worry about in 2012. Also, bear in mind that the youth vote will only improve for him 4 yrs from now as older voters attrit and children achieve age of majority over these years - his approval ratings will tell you more about his EV total going up or down.
Usually, your EV total will go up with incumbency, though, unless you have very poor ratings like Carter or Bush Sr. With a 2-to-1 approval so far, Obama's in good shape to fundraise well for 2010 candidates and again for himself in 2012, thus improving his chances. Money and name-recognition advantage accounts for a 94% incumbency rate in America and I think, doing the quick math on the 10-12 swing states for 2012, Obama's chances of re-election run at about 99% as of right now. Barring a Monica or a worsening economy, ergo, I don't think this kind of minutiatic detail is needed in our analysis right now.
I also think VA will continue to blueshift over the next 4 yrs, making it just as likley as CO to be Obama's one needed crossover state to break 270 in 2012. This gives him 2 good shots at the prize and that's more than enough, barring any other considerations like FL, OH, MO, NC, IN and others. I'd forget about MT and the Dakota's though, as those probably were only close due to Ron Paul and conservative dissatisfaction with the GOP nominee and/or with Bush. But AZ is swingable without McCain on the ticket, is what this data tells us.
-Jeff
clifton said...
You say that McCain got 99.14% of Bush's vote, and that Obama's improvement was due to getting new voters. True enough, but such figures should be adjusted for population growth
not necessarily true. It depends on the nature of the population growth -birth or migration. If migration was it from blue or red states. The population doesn't grow at every age level equally. If Bush's support was amongst older voters who are no longer around he might not do as well and in fact might do even worse. I believe that there is some evidence to suggest that these areas are getting bluer because people are moving from blue states.
The Winch wrote: "It might be interesting to see how this changes given the likely electoral college changes after the 2010 Census."
This seems to me to be a natural match for the 538 "skill set." There must be plenty of population estimates out there, at both the state and county level. The states that are likely to gain and lose representatives could be identified. Then redistricting scenarios could worked out based on current state legislature makeup.
This conclusion, at least regionally, comes at a time when "the now-established consensus is that Obama did very well in getting out his vote; but his 7 point margin of victory was largely accomplished by former Republican voters staying home."
Sean,this is ambiguous. Do you accept what Sullivan is saying?
The way I see it, Nate gives the Dems 259 almost guaranteed electoral votes. By all accounts I can find, those states will go down by at most 10 electors in 2012. To get from 249 to 270 means they need to pick 21 votes from the mountain west and traditional swing states. CO+NV+NM would be about 20 more.
If redistricting goes perfectly for the GOP, they could nail all of the traditional swing states and maybe eek out a tie or 1 vote win without the mountain west. It is going to be tough for them, but redistricting will give them a fighting chance.
Ken,
This is complicated by the requirement be voter population, not total pop. Thus, we'd need access to more than just raw numbers - mortality/maturity, immigration/emigration and elligibility stats for each of the 50 states. Without those, you'll just need to go with out guesses. What happened in the last Census, I think 7 CDs moved, right? Expect similar results this time.
(Also, ND and SD will eventually need to be re-combined due to their total pop being reduced to less than the 1.5 units needed to have 2 separate CDs at a minimum, maybe in 2030 or so.)
-Jeff
It's possible to vote for the first black president twice.
Nate,
Your math requires some corrections. The 99.14% of Bush's totals is not the same individuals who voted for Bush. Every four years, about 6% of those who participated in the previous general elections die. As we know, the older part of the population tends to vote Republican, so by keeping the numbers, McCain was [unfortunately] able to convince some of those who had not voted for Bush 4 years ago.
@former_covansian: The article was written by Sean, not Nate.
A more general (and valid) point in your critique is that we can only learn so much by making aggregate comparisons of vote totals received by each candidate. In addition to mortality there is exit and entrance to the voter pool from new cohorts, migration, and changing technology (how votes are counted), and other factors.
Also, sort of like when you look at net migration flows between countries, there is a heck of a lot more migration both ways than shows up in the net figures. In an extreme case, we may know that a huge number of people left a disaster or war zone, for example; but even in such situations there is migration both into and out of the zone.
So in order to diagnose the trends over time, someone is going to have to examine more micro-level data based on surveys of individuals.
That said, I think Sean has made a pretty convincing first approximation and even a plausible explanation for what happened: McCain didn't lose; Obama won. And the McCain campaign may have been complaisant because they thought they'd be retaining their supporters and Obama wouldn't be adding an unusual number of new ones.
wv: prons (I'll take mine with chili sauce)
Actually, Sean posted that.
And his comment that "McCain won 99.14% of Bush's total, dropping less than one percent." is accurate, regardless of the fact that it was (to some degree) a different collection of individual voters.
In 2006, Republicans consoled themselves that it was "a perfect storm" of disgust with Bush, Mark Foley and Katrina that done them in. They made no efforts to conform to the voter will expressed by handing both houses of Congress and several governorships to the Democrats.
This lead to 2008, where after 2 years of body blocking for an increasingly unpopular president, they lost the White House, 7(8) more Senate seats and a couple dozen House seats.
If they now make 2008 to be an anomaly, they have assured Democratic control of the nation for 8 years or more. The longer they put off internal reforms, the longer they can stay in the wilderness.
I don't agree that this is a good thing. The US needs 2 strong parties that offer a solid choice to voters, not one inept party and one evil one. Obama seems to have cured the Democrats, at least temporarily, of its status as the Useless Party. Can Republicans repent of being the Evil Party?
One data point is not a trend. I lets wait a few cycles before we claim a structural shift.
That said, I find the Bible Belt/LDS republican party to be a disservice to a real diversity of ideas in this country. Economic conservatives should not be burdened with a religious right agenda. If anything, that is the major trend of the last election. As always, the central problem is Palin: the GOP is the Palin party and most Americans want something more moderate.
Washington Times, 1/6/2008:
(I chose the Times as it is one of the most conservative news organizations, thus would show the probable worst scenario)
Losers:
New York - 2 seats
Ohio - 2 seats
Massachusetts - 1 seat
New Jersey - 1 seat
Pennsylvania - 1 seat
Michigan - 1 seat
Illinois - 1 seat
Minnesota - 1 seat
Iowa - 1 seat
Missouri - 1 seat
California - 1 seat
Also, Louisiana could lose a seat, depending on what happens in and around New Orleans.
Total - 13 or 14
Gainers:
Texas - 4 seats
Florida - 2 seats
Arizona - 2 seats
Georgia - 1 seat
North Carolina - 1 seat
South Carolina - 1 seat
Nevada - 1 seat
Utah - 1 seat
Oregon - 1 seat
Total - 14 seats
If it is a 14 seat shift, the Electoral College could show a loss of 10 EC votes in solid blue states (NY, MA, NJ, PA, MI, IL, MN, IA, CA), but a gain of 2 (NV and OR), for a net loss of 8.
The solid red state gains could total 7 (TX, GA, SC, UT), with a loss of one in LA, for a net gain of 6.
Ohio and Florida cancel each other, and they should be considered swing states at this point. I would consider AZ, MO and NC as potential/probable swing states in 2012 also.
Nate's comment about the GOP being on "cruise control" during the election is a perfect metaphor. I really don't see anyone in the party proposing concrete solutions to address what ails them. Lot's of magical thinking and a few invocations of Newt's 1994 and Ronnie's 1980, but no real ideas for the future. They actually seem to be counting on Obama making all the same mistakes Clinton did. By the time they figure out our guy is way cooler than they ever thought or could ever understand, it will be way too late to save 2010.
If Governor Schweitzer is the nominee in 2016, the Democrats will OWN the Mountain West.
Schweitzer/Warner '16
Richard said...
Not only can Democrats only elect the first black president once, they can only run against George Bush's Republican Party once.
I'm not so sure about that. The Democrats ran against Herbert Hoover for...how long?
I guess the question of how long the Dems can run against George Bush depends on how bad this recession (let's not use the "D" word) and the long-term impact of the Iraq War turn out to be.
Bush's popularity was below 30 for a good portion of the election. Let's talk about structural shifts if and when the Democrats win the mid-term elections.
Overall, I agree with you. Following historic landslides in '64 and '72, the winning parties lost in '68 and '76; and following the '84 debacle, the Dems had a clear shot in '88, which they lost due to being outplayed by the Repubs. It's just a leetle early to go braggin' on a permanent Dem majority.
Back in June or July (I can't remember which), I was at this convenience store waiting in line. This older lady cornered me and started making a pitch for John McCain, which kinds threw me off balance. She asked who I was voting for, and I said Obama. She asked why, and instead of going through a whole litany, I told her about how frustrating it is when I see how much of our culture is dominated by baby-boomer sentimentality. All the major movies seem to be remakes of sitcoms from their youth, same thing with most of the music you hear on the radio or in stores when you're out shopping. The books you see on the shelves are mostly rehashes and retrospectives on what an important decade the 60's were, and where were you when they shot JFK. I just wanted to see someone younger get in, you know? Someone more like me.
Her response was what struck me as bizarre. She said " Why, John McCain's the same age as the Pope! He's the perfect age to be President!"
She never bothered to ask if I was catholic. I'm not. The Pope isn't really that impressive to non-catholics. Even less so to gay non-catholics familiar with his stance on GLBT rights. I didn't bring that part up, although most folks don't need me to.
I felt a certain degree of disbelief; not at the religious assumptions, but at the idea that someone would try to argue the age thing with a guy 50 years her junior who had just mentioned that he felt a little left out of the theatre of ideas that is so dominated by those older than he. Wasn't she even listening to what I was saying?
The arguments of the opposition fell on deaf ears in the GOP camp this year. They seemed to read all the signals wrong. When they (correctly) ascertained that a large portion of the population wanted to vote for Hillary, they thought anybody with a pair of X chromosomes would be sufficient to grab those votes. They didn't stop to think that they weren't just voting for any woman, they wanted Hillary. But they didn't see Hillary, all they saw were her tits, and replied to the electorate with a "Hey, you want tits, we got tits!"
When the economy was falling apart, they started lionizing deregulation, and dug up Ronald Reagan's memory to sell it - completely oblivious to the fact that everyone was describing the principal cause of the housing bubble's bursting as the lack of regulation. They just figured, "Hey, you want to talk about the economy and change.... well, Reagan changed the economy! Let's talk about him!" as if the mere mention of Reagan's name was a magical talisman that would wipe all reason from the argument.
After 2006's electoral bombshell, which has been attributed to the War in Iraq, and the growing pressure to get us out of there, after all the poll numbers pointed to the idea of the Iraq War as a bad thing in the American mind, the GOP's response was to sing a little ditty about bombing Iran, talk up staying in Iraq for another hundred years, and once again suggesting that we needed to stay the course.
They went into an election begging the American public to listen to them, but refused to pay any attention to what the American public was saying in response. Kinda like those assholes that talk over you in a conversation because they're so fucking telepathic they can predict everything you're going to say.
Sadly, I don't see the GOP becoming any more receptive. They're dominated by Talk Radio, which gives them talking points but no logic. The christian right tells them to play the holier-than-thou card instead of treating you like an equal in the conversation. And Faux News gives them the impression that logic is a waste of time, and shouting your opponent down makes you better than them.
Well, unless you need us to do something for you. Like vote for your candidates.
You know why I'm a liberal? Because there's no point in talking to someone that won't do anything that,s not programmed into them. Sometimes, talking to Repugnants is like opening a refrigerator door. The light goes on, the light goes off, and that's about it. Granted, talking to Democrats is sometimes like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, but at least you feel like someone's paying some kind of attention.
So, I tell you what. I'll seriously contemplate a Republican candidate when Sean Hannity and Billo the Clown stop behaving like complete assholes. When Ann Coulter at least pretends not to spew venom on anyone that disagrees with her, then I'll listen to your sales pitch. But until you ditch that pre-programmed, robotlike attack style and glassy-eyed subservience to the party line, forget it.
Republicans aren't going to change. They can't. Their base won't let them.
Ergo, they are doomed and croaked. They've been running as the "White Backlash" party since 1968 and it finally came back around and bit them in the ass!
It's one thing to be running Willie Horton ads in 1988 when the minority vote was less than 15% and the White backlash vote easily overwhelmed it.
Republicans are used to living in a world where they can attack minorities and win elections -- thus they attacked Obama's supporters and mocked the excitement and sense of pride in the black community. They ran ads on Rev. Wright.
And this was only a couple of years after massive attacks were made on Hispanics for daring to wave Mexican flags during a series of rallies-marches protesting various punitive immigration reform measures.
Obama won not only 95% of Blacks, whose voting percentage increased 2% to 13%, but Latinos: (9%) 67%-31%; Asians/Others: (5%) 64%-33%.
Overall, over 70% of non-white voters voted Democratic, a 40% margin.
There is flat no future at all for Republicans if they continue to lose minority voters like this!
The non-white vote is increasing by almost 1% per year as America marches towards becoming a majority-minority country by 2040.
In 1996, the White vote was 83%, while in 2008 it was 74%. Within 10 years, non-whites will make up over 1/3 of the total electorate.
Unless they Republican party wants to become the 21st century equivalent of the Whigs they better start seriously trying to appeal to minorities.
And they're not going to do that with a hopeless warmed over stew of the same cultural war CRAP they've been spewing out to lure White Crackers like Mule-Rider all these years.
That ain't going to cut it.
But, try and tell them that back in Appalachia and their heads start to explode.
Don't discount the underdog effect. The Reps are sudden underdogs (in the minds of the electorate at large, if not their own), and their base is motivated. Meanwhile, FUD is rapidly wearing the shine off of Obama and the Dems, who are in the conceptual hot seat and yet not seated yet, a vulnerable position.
I don't believe the e-at-large yet perceives the Repubs as underdogs. Shrub, after all, is still (sadly) the president, and their senators are still making lots of noise. Be that as it may, their base being motivated matters less and less because of the simple fact, illustrated by several posters, that their base is shrinking. And they're not doing much -- if anything -- to enlarge it.
Statler-
I almost always agree with everything you say,so please don't take this personally!I
I've reached the point (and I suspect others have too) that I'm skipping your posts because of their Brobdingnagian length.I just don't have the time to plough through their unnecessary repetitiveness and extraneous tangential material.So please be more concise and to the point.
I send this with the best will in the world.
I would include parts of (or partly) Oregon and Washington into the Mountain West conversation as they are similar demographically. Obama improved in virtually all of the OR/WA counties, and in fact won half of the the counties outright in WA (maybe OR too), including some that were rural and 95% white.
I know we think of them as comfortably blue now but Bush lost OR by just 0.5% in 2000.
When I lived in Mesa, AZ about 10 years ago, the area was growing insanely fast, not just from people from CA., but midwesterners as well, MO and IL among others.
Statler, along with everything else she was wrong about, your convenience store lady was wrong about McCain being the same age as the pope. The pope is more than 9 years older than McCain.
wv: submetic = not quite nauseating
We only lost Montana by 2.26%. If Obama shows leadership and the rural voters figure out that God and Guns are still there, we will be able to tip the state.
"They went into an election begging the American public to listen to them, but refused to pay any attention to what the American public was saying in response. . . .
Sadly, I don't see the GOP becoming any more receptive. They're dominated by Talk Radio, which gives them talking points but no logic. . . ."
This is completely correct Stattler. What happens is simply that Republicans have wrapped themselves in the flag and in religious "righteousness" and anybody who doesn't agree with them is "un-American" "traitor" "terrorist!" "baby-killer."
You heard right-wingers scream all these things at Palin rallies during the latter stages of the campaign.
You don't have to listen when GOD's on your side, when you're marching in the battalions of GOD's ARMY!
Instead you accuse your opponents of cheating! My father who is a classic ditto-head told me he was profoundly depressed because Democrats were stealing the election with the help of ACORN. He really believed this insanity.
I tried to explain to him that Mickey Mouse didn't have a photo ID and thus wouldn't be voting, but it was like talking to someone who doesn't speak English. He'd been programmed.
It's going to take a few more elections before the right wingers begin to GET that the rest of America doesn't care about what they think. This will force them to conclude that we've all be programmed by "the librul media."
Why doesn't Lousiana go for Obama?
I mean New Oreleans should be quite liberal?
Still bragging about the Civil Rights Act under Lyndon B Johnson down there?
William,
New Orleans IS liberal but didn't comprise nearly enough of the population to turn LA blue BEFORE Katrina. Now, with so many of the poorer, more reliably Democratic voters gone, probably forever, LA is even LESS liberal than before.
The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain did state-by-state, 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
MT Conservative:
Your figures are still ignoring the Ron Paul vote, which when added to the GOP total makes the McCain MoV about 5%. Assume no Paul and no Nader on the ballot in 2012. Further, assume a more agreeable GOP nominee like Romney. Obama realistically starts out as about a 4.5% underdog. Also, Bush will be a forgotten memory 4 yrs from now, minimising the protest vote. (Dem generic ballot already fading according to Rasmussen repeated here)
I'm not saying it's impossible to swing MT, just saying it would be a major effort and for what? 3 EVs? Not really worth it, unless you're going for 400+ EVs. If Barack absolutely wants the landlside on his record and if his numbers look good (above 60%) in 2012, then he may spend the cash. If not, I don't expect a real push in MT. But it could always be another feint move to draw GOP cash into a "safe" state. AZ is much more swingable, IMHO.
-Jeff
I'm no statistician, so maybe I'm missing something here but I don't understand the statement "John McCain essentially repeated the Bush vote in the Mountain West. Overall, McCain won 99.14% of Bush's total, dropping less than one percent." I don't understand how it can be said that he did almost as well as Bush in the region when he lost Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico by wide margins so I must not be understanding what the statement is referring to. Somebody please help me out here and please be kind to your "statisticsologically challenged" fellow reader of 538.com.:)
Excellent post Sean, and good analysis by Ickey and others. The likely 2010 census outcomes ARE somewhat depressing though. (disclaimer, I live in Las Vegas and am insanely happy that NV and NM outperformed every other state for Obama!). Of course, those 4-8 electoral votes likely to be lost by dems can be made up by switching AZ's 10 (or more) in 2012. The demographics seem to make that very doable. As was rightly pointed out Montana CAN also be won, as the margin there was only about 20,000 for Bush (same as in NV in 2004). Obama made the correct calculation by NOT pushing harder there this time though, as NM, CO, and NV were much more important. It's important to note that the common wisdom that 18-29 and Latino turnout gains helped dems this time is just wrong. Youth turnout nationally was up marginally, at best, and Latino turnout was as bad as usual. What helped, tremendously, was the MARGINS in those two groups, about 30% in both, a HUGE improvement from 2004. The youth margin alone counted for about 4% of the 7% popular vote win. Thus there are still gains to be made with those groups.
Myra: "I don't understand how it can be said that he did almost as well as Bush in the region when he lost Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico by wide margins so I must not be understanding what the statement is referring to."
McCain got the same NUMBER of votes as Bush, but unfortunately for him, Obama got LOTS MORE than Kerry, so McCain's percentage, out of the larger new total, went way down.
Mule Rider
WE are the leathernecks who risked it all in Europe and the Pacific in WWII to make sure the Axis Powers didn't rule the world with tyranny.
Really? Man, you type really well for a 80-year-old.
Patriotism is neither liberal nor conservative, it's American. Right now, Americans want a liberal minority community organizer with a funny name from Chicago to lead us in a new direction.
Want to criticize him? Fine, enjoy those First Amendment rights that the Fox News crowd didn't like to see exercised when their team was in power. But don't pretend that this is your country any more than it is ours.
And, as a side note, my grandad served in WWII as well, so go fuck right off with that "more patriotic than thou" bullshit.
This is a great analysis, but I have something to add. The Obama campaign knew early on that we were going to win California in November, and also knew that there were enormous numbers of enthusiastic Obama supporters in the most populous state. All committed Obama supporters in California were assigned to assist the campaign in battleground states, especially Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico, but others as well. A few statistics illustrate how massive that effort was. California volunteers made over 10 million calls to battleground states in the final phase of the campaign, including 5.6 million calls in the last four days. 18,000 California volunteers worked on election day, and made over 2 million calls that day. 620 California volunteers did internships in 10 battleground states for as long as 5 weeks each. Weekend volunteer travelers made over 13,000 trips to Nevada and Colorado. This effort entirely freed the volunteers living in those states from having to make phone calls, and put them on the streets where they could be most effective. This entire project was completed with very few paid staff - 12 in all of California at the end, while typical battleground states had 300 - 400 paid staffers on duty. Longtime campaign pros saw the California volunteer effort for Obama as unprecedented in the history of electoral politics, and rightly so.
- Jim Heaphy
pizzuti is right. This blog post lost me when it claimed the mountain west was "mostly rural." The populations of these states are centered *heavily* in urban areas such as Salt Lake City, Boise, Las Vegas and Phoenix.
Another commenter also made a great point about growth: we've seen huge population growth out here, especially people fleeing California.
Finally, this article makes a point about Obama flipping Latah and Teton counties in Idaho. Latah was interesting but Teton flipped because of demographics, not Obama. Teton's been built up these last few years with vacation homes for wealthy folks: the same crowd as in Jackson Hole and in the Sun Valley / Stanley area, which are both (I believe) Democratic islands in these two very red states.
Brian: Latah County, Idaho, is mostly Moscow, Idaho, a college town. Tons of likely dem voters, tons of volunteers. Done deal.
Moscow is the butt of many Commie jokes elsewhere in Idaho. But much of the [northern] Idaho panhandle is historically non-Mormon, and working-class Democratic, because of all the now-mostly-spent mines outside Coeur d'Alene.
520聊天室
一夜情聊天室
一夜情貼圖區
一夜聊天室
一葉晴貼圖區
一葉晴貼影片區
丁字褲女優
丁字褲美女寫真
丁字褲美女影片
人之初貼圖區
八國聯軍情色網
八國聯軍論壇
十七歲女孩貼影區
又又處女貼影區
下載a片
上班族聊天室
大老婆俱樂部
大波霸美女影片
大眾論壇
女同志聊天室
女郎俱樂部
女郎貼影區
女狼俱樂部
女學生內衣照
女優天堂貼圖
女優王國
女優盒子
女優貼片
女優貼圖
女優電影
女優寫真
女優影片
小老婆俱樂部
小老鼠論壇
小弟弟情色網
小弟弟貼圖區
小弟弟貼影片
小弟弟貼影片區
小弟弟貼影片網
小弟弟貼影區
小弟弟影片
小杜情色網
小妹妹貼影區
小高聊天室
小說論壇
小賤人貼影區
小瓢蟲情色論壇
小瓢蟲論壇
小護士偷拍網
小魔女自拍天堂貼圖區
小魔女自拍貼圖區
小魔女免費影片
小魔女貼圖區
小魔女貼影片
不色不進貼影區
不穿內衣
中部人聊天室
內衣秀
內衣模特兒
內衣模特兒寫真
內衣褲
天天情色
天天幹貼圖區
天天網遊論壇
天天論壇
天生名模貼圖區
天堂私服論壇
天堂情色
天堂情色網
夫妻聯誼俱樂部
少女內衣
手工內衣
日本av女優
日本av女優免費影片區
日本a片
日本女優
日本內衣
日本正妹
日本正妹照片
日本正妹影片
日本美女
日本美女圖庫
日本美女寫真集
日本偷拍
日本情色女優
日本辣美女優
日本模特兒寫真
日本學生妹
月光論壇
月宮俱樂部
月宮貼圖區
比基尼
比基尼女郎
比基尼內衣
比基尼泳裝
比基尼泳裝外拍
比基尼泳裝美女
比基尼泳裝美女的影片
比基尼泳裝美少女圖片
比基尼美女
比基尼美女的奶
比基尼辣妹
比基尼辣妹照片區
比基尼辣妹圖片
比基尼辣妹影片
比基尼線
水美眉
北部人聊天室
卡通aa片
卡通aa片免費看
卡通a片
卡通a片免費看
卡通美女遊戲
卡通貼圖區
可愛美眉
只有貼圖區
台中人聊天室
台中聊天室
台論論壇
台灣 kiss 倩色網貼圖區
台灣 kiss 情網貼圖區
台灣av女優
台灣a片
台灣a片王
台灣kiss情色文學
台灣kiss情色文學區
台灣kiss情色網
台灣女優
台灣自拍偷拍
台灣客棧電影貼圖區
台灣美女
台灣美女 kiss 情網貼圖區
台灣美女貼圖
台灣美女貼圖區
台灣美女電影
台灣美女圖
台灣美女寫真貼圖區
台灣香腸俱樂部
台灣偷拍
台灣情色
台灣情色貼圖
台灣情色網
台灣情色網綜合論壇
台灣情色論壇
台灣無限貼圖區
台灣貼圖區
台灣賓館偷拍
台灣論壇
台灣論壇女生遊戲
台灣論壇好玩遊戲區
台灣論壇遊戲區
巨乳女優
巨乳美女
布蘭妮貼圖區
平面模特兒
打工正妹
本土a片
本土女優
本土偷拍
正妹大學
正妹大學宅男社
正妹日報
正妹地圖
正妹百人斬
正妹自拍
正妹空姐寫真
正妹星球
正妹相簿
正妹美食地圖
正妹無名
正妹無名相簿
正妹無名相簿分享
正妹照片
正妹圖
正妹圖片
正妹圖片或照片
正妹網
正妹裸照
正妹影片
正妹餐廳
正妹牆
交友啦咧聊天室
交友聊天室
交友貼影區
伊莉論壇
同志聊天
同志聊天室
同志貼圖區
名模露點
成人a片
成人偷拍
成人情色
成人情色小說
成人情色文學
成人情色貼圖
成人情色貼圖區
成人聊天室
成人貼圖區
成人影片
成人影城
成人影音
成人影音城
成人論壇
有閒俱樂部
百分百貼圖區
米克情色網
米克綜合論壇
自拍a片
自拍偷拍
自拍偷拍成人影片
自拍偷拍貼圖
自拍偷拍貼圖區
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,
^^ 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,
^^ 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,
外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 ,
外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇
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,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment