Blogs > Cliopatria > Beyond Red/Blue?

Jun 19, 2004

Beyond Red/Blue?




Rasmussen Reports uses a controversial polling technique (automated calls) and therefore is somewhat controversial--but it has the ability, as a result, to poll every day, and thus far during this year's campaign season it's been pretty accurate. RR has just come out with its latest Electoral College projection, which lists 9 states with 123 electoral votes as tossups--Florida, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

This list confirms some patterns from 2000--in competitive presidential contests, Illinois is now a safe Democratic state, West Virginia is a safe Republican one. But two interesting points: first, Kerry is sunk if he can't carry PA, just as Bush has little chance if he loses Ohio. Second, and more interesting, is the inclusion of VA and NC on the list. I had read several articles a couple of weeks ago that the Kerry campaign had decided to contest VA, but considered it spin--evidently not. And Democrats have been saying that the Research Triangle area would make NC competitive for two decades, but it looks as if the trade issue has done the trick this time.

That VA and NC are the two Southern states (besides Florida) that Kerry could carry suggests just how much the South has changed, even in the last four years. Between 1980 and 2000, the four best Southern states (excluding Florida) for the Democrats were Georgia, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Louisiana. In recent years, the Democratis parties of the first two states have wholly collapsed, and in Arkansas, Senator Blance Lincoln, who hasn't even endorsed Kerry yet, has said that if he came to the state, she wouldn't campaign with him. Ditto for Rep. Chris John, the Democratic frontrunner in Louisiana. For those of you whose libraries have access to it, this week's National Journal has an excellent article on Southern politics.

Two other interesting items from the Rasmussen poll. The first comes in the states not listed as toss-ups, especially Arizona and Colorado. Given the negative publicity on his signature issues of Iraq and terrorism over the last two months, it really does make you wonder what Bush would have to do to fall below 45% or so in polls. Second, the tightness of the race suggests that Charlie Cook's column in yesterday's L.A. Times is correct: even if his overall vote is much lower in 2004 than in 2000, Ralph Nader could again ensure a Bush victory.



comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:


Peter K. Clarke - 10/9/2007

The question of the Supreme Court in the 2000 election has come up before in this forum, and never been properly addressed (here or anywhere else to my knowledge).

Of course, since "constitutionality" is decided by the Supreme Court, there can be no such thing as an "unconstitutional" Supreme Court ruling. But what they did clearly seems to go against previous precedent and against the framer's intentions to have the House Representatives choose the president if no candidate had a clear majority in the Electoral College.

Ends do not justify means. The likelihood that the House would have chosen Bush anyway does not make the Supreme Court's usurpation of that function legitimate.


Dave Livingston - 1/7/2005

Ralph,Ralph,

You're off in Left field again. That Zell Miller, former Ga. Democratic Senator & Governor & fomer pillar of the Ga. Democratic Party has for months been working hard to support President Bush & has said repeatedly there's no way he would support Kerry or any other DSemocrat.

It disappoints me that you, a Christian, could consider, assuming you are, supporting Kerry. For one thing, according to a 15 January 2002 Linda Bowles essay before me Howard Fineman of "Newsweek," certainly no Right-winger, reported "It is the intention of the Democrat Party to launch an all-out attack on conservative Christians...a daring assault on the most critical turf in politics: the cultural mainstream." For this essay go to http://www.townhall.com/columnists/lindabowles20020115.shtml

Although my father was a life-long Democrat & for the first several years of my majority I too was registered as one & I remain a strong fan of John Kennedy nonetheless today I wouldn't vote for a Democrat for so much as garbage collector. Clearly, the party has changed over recent decades. Back when it wasn't a promoter of anti-American propaganda, blasphemous art, anti-nuclear family programs and generally anti-Christian. It is evident that the Democratic Party establishment is now enthrall to the Advesary--& proud of its evil slavery.


Marc "Adam Moshe" Bacharach - 6/28/2004

You will get no disagreement from me on that point. Nevertheless, there is nothing anyone can do about that now. There is however something we can do about the "Nader Factor." I would encourage anyone who desires the defeat of George Bush to talk to any Bush/Nader supporter that they know and tey to explain to them how American elections work and why supporting Nader is a wrong idea.


Matthew Lasar - 6/27/2004

Is it me, or do 20/21st century third parties in the United States revolve around personalities much more than 19th century third parties did? I can't remember the early Republican party (before Lincoln during the Civil War) or the Populists having the same kind of dominant personalities as did the Socialist Party of the early 20th century (Debs), the American Independent Party (G. Wallace), EPIC (Sinclair), and of late, the Green Party of 2000 (Nader). In fact, most of these parties fell apart after their dominant personalities faded or got bored with the project (eg. T. Roosevelt's Progressive Party of 1912).

I suppose the exception to this rule would be the CP-USA. But once the CP moved into its Popular Front phase, it didn't really try to win elections on a national level, at least not in the 1930s. Nader, it seems to me, exemplifies the 20th century U.S. phenomenon of a personality in search of a party, especially right now.


Marc "Adam Moshe" Bacharach - 6/26/2004

Indeed, there were any number of reasons why Gore lost, from his home state, to the voting machines, and so forth. Nevertheless, this does not change the fact that had Ralph Nader NOT run in 2000, Al Gore would today be president of the United States. Access to debates is MEAINGLESS. We live in a 2 party system, and that system has been totally institutionalized to prevent third parties from winning.

If Nader or anyone else wanted to change this, they would run for Congress, where they may be able to make a difference by trying to change the structures that prevent 3rd parties from winning.

Instead, every four years, some fool decides that his or her own personal ambition to be known supercedes whatever cause they desire. This formula will only help the person who is furthest away from them ideologically. It always had... it always will until the system is changed. Access to the ballot or to debates will not change anything accept more votes for Bush and less for Kerry. I hope Nader and his supporters are content with that reality.


Randll Reese Besch - 6/26/2004

It was the supreme court that illegally and unconstitiutionally "elected" Bush to the office that he had otherwise lost. If Nader and the other candidates are to get an equal chance at the presidency then their access to the debates can't be denied. Over 190,000 votes were removed without cause and done criminally from the last election. Nothing has changed in Bush's Florida over that. The neocon dominated e-voting machines will solve their voting problems anyway. See Chuck Hegel in 1996.


Marc "Adam Moshe" Bacharach - 6/26/2004

Mr. Livingston,
If I may respond to your post directed at Mr. Luker,

1) "That Zell Miller, former Ga. Democratic Senator & Governor & fomer pillar of the Ga. Democratic Party has for months been working hard to support President Bush & has said repeatedly there's no way he would support Kerry or any other DSemocrat."

Miller is representative of no one but himself. He has made it clear that he will support no Democrat and would support almost any Republican. I can only speculate that he remains a Democrat in label so as to give some aura of credibility to his arguments and so Republicans can continuously point to him and say, "look, even the Democrats support Bush, why look at, say, Zell Miller for example..."

2) "It disappoints me that you, a Christian, could consider, assuming you are, supporting Kerry."

I must say, I am amazed that ANY Christian can support President Bush (although I know that the vast majority do). Unless one defines all of Christianity on abortion, or is willing to vote for whomever appears the most devout, I see very little of the Christian faith in Bush's policies. Don't get me wrong, I see little Christianity in Kerry either, but then again, Kerry does not wear his religion on his forehead and go around talking about how Christian he is- Bush does and thus his own record bears scrutiny.

His economic policies clearly favor the wealthy over the needy- in virtually all areas. The Education Department; a nutrition program for women, infants and children; Head Start; and homeownership, job-training, medical research and science programs all face cuts under his administration, to name but a few. One may make the argument, "yes but he is simply trying to cut the size of the government," but that is not the case. Many other programs, including tax subsidies for corporations (including those that base off shore to avoid taxation), agricultural corporations, and so on, and so on are getting major tax cuts, along with ballooning other federal programs and pork projects that Republicans support.

Bush favors the death penalty, encourages policies that harm the planet God gave to all people, and has eagerly invaded another country rather than wait for the results of inspectors based on information that appears to be false.

"Jesus said that "Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth... Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy... Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God."

I am not suggesting that the Democrats fall nicely into the Christian category (certainly in the area of abortion and gay rights, they do not), but the Republicans certainly do not. So by all means, go ahead and vote for a garbage collector over a Democrat, but you better make sue that garbage collector is an independent, otherwise you risk hypocrisy.

Mind you, none of this concerns me, as I do not vote based on who can claim to be the most religious, but for those people who DO vote that way, I urge them to not be blinded by empty rhetoric about compassion. While the mouth can pray with all the passion of Christ, look at what the hands are doing while you are distracted.

PS: How are the Democrats anti-American and anti-nuclear family again? And I really don't get how they favor one kind of art over another? You don't really give any explanation for those broad accusations.

Here are articles that elaborate on some of my points:
http://gadflyer.com/articles/?ArticleID=80
http://www.oregonlive.com/letters/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1087083042245730.xml
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58762-2004May26.html
http://www.chn.org/humanneeds/article.asp?Art=1045

A message for President Bush:

"When thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."
-- Mat. 6:5-6


Ralph E. Luker - 6/20/2004

KC, It's a bit of an exaggeration to say that the Democratic Party in Georgia has totally collapsed, but I can certainly see the justification for saying it. For many decades the most reliably Democratic state in the country, it now is a Republican dominated state. Bush will almost certainly carry the state in November and the Democrats have essentially conceded Zell Miller's seat in the Senate to the Republicans by fielding no strong candidate to succeed him. Yet, the Democrats still hold important state-wide elective offices and a substantial block of Georgia's congressional seats. The really striking change in the latter came between 1988 and 1998, when white male Democrats altogether disappeared from Georgia's congressional delegation. With redistricting, that's changed slightly now. That in a state where white male Democrats were the only game in town for a century. But just as Democrats have begun to realize that they must fight to win white male votes, Republicans have also begun to field credible black candidates, both for the Senate seat and for seats in the House of Representatives. In other words, despite the appearance of an abdication by the Democrats, no one is taking much for granted down here.