National Journal's Ron Brownstein is excellent.
I look to this report as one which is addressing what may go on in the future. Yes, Brownstein mentioned that the Rust Belt states may become more GOP friendly (meaning, percentage-points margins of losses would be trending as not so bad; and winning Republicans will flip a given state here or there in this area which is not just Ohio). But, it's really looking down the road to the 2020s or 2030s. It's a report which, in a way, is also looking at trending moves of people in the U.S. with regard for where they will be living. It's populations. It's shifts. It's regard for particular states which will experience gains or losses.
Since the Republicans and Democrats first competed against each other in 1856, there have been a few winning Republicans, when the Democrats had their base states in the South, who did not carry a single state among the Old Confederacy. They range from Abraham Lincoln, in his first election of 1860, to Calvin Coolidge, in his full-term election of 1924. But, when it comes to the states of the Rust Belt, there has never been a presidential winner who carried zero states from this area.
The Rust Belt has been losing populations. But, still, it is an area which is maintaining its electoral prowess. Ohio is the most reputable bellwether state, having an unbroken streak of getting it right since 1964 and voting within five percentage points of the margins in the U.S. Popular Vote. Frankly, the best companion state to Ohio, one which is also a bellwether state and has voted within five percentage points of the margins in the U.S. Popular Vote (but since 1996) is Florida. They're likeminded in their voting. They're typically a couple percentage points in spread from each other.
I live in Michigan. I don't worry about the Rust Belt. Historically from the 57 presidential elections of 1789 to 2012, the average percentage of states carried by presidential winners is about 69/70 percent. (I did a project on my own in research and compiling the information.) The best state historically in backing winners is New Mexico. (It has voted since it entered the union in 1912. It sided with all popular-vote winners except Jimmy Carter in 1976. It's the only state which has voted for winners 90 percent or more during its existence. And, due to demographic changes and its margins carrying in 2008 and 2012 for Barack Obama, it now looks like a Lean Democratic state.) The second-best state historically in backing presidential winners is Barack Obama's home and Hillary Clinton's birth—and Rust Belt—state Illinois. (It has sided with winners approximately 85 percent. From 1856 to 1996, it only sided with three losing presidential elections—the losing Republicans of 1884, 1916, and 1976. George W. Bush, in 2000, became the first winning Republican elected without Illinois—an example of realignment.) In Michigan, the historical average of it having carried for presidential winners is nearly 75 percent. The point is this: The Rust Belt states are above historical average in carrying for presidential winners. (Even Indiana, which is slightly better than Michigan, is in a position to become a 2016 Democratic pickup for Hillary Clinton, thanks to Donald Trump, after it willingly became a 2008 Democratic pickup for Barack Obama—marking the first time since 1964 that it carried for Team Blue.) By contrast to the Rust Belt, seven of the eleven Old Confederacy states—Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas—are significantly below that historically 69/70 percent. (The most populous state in this area, Texas is at about 60 percent. Alabama ranks as the worst in the nation; it's barely above 50 percent in having carried for presidential winners.)
What is not mentioned in Ron Brownstein's report are how people vote. In 2008, when Barack Obama won a Democratic pickup of the presidency, he moved a 2004 John Kerry's 2.46 percentage-points loss to a +7.26 win—a 2004-to-2008 national shift of almost 10 percentage points. In 2008, the last presidential election in which all 50 states, plus District of Columbia, were exit-polled (in 2012, just 31 were exit-polled), Obama carried 28 states, plus Nebraska's 2nd Congressional District (area of Omaha) and District of Columbia, for 365 electoral votes. From those 28 were 18 states (plus District of Columbia)—at which time they were worth 222 electoral votes—in which Obama actually carried the white vote. And I will list them (along with Obama's percentage of the white vote from each state):
• California 52%
• Colorado (pickup) 50%
• Connecticut 51%
• Delaware 53%
• District of Columbia 86%
• Hawaii 70%
• Illinois 51%
• Iowa (pickup) 51%
• Maine 58%
• Massachusetts 59%
• Michigan 50%
• Minnesota 53%
• New Hampshire 54%
• New York 52%
• Oregon 57%
• Rhode Island 58%
• Vermont 67%
• Washington 55%
• Wisconsin 54%
In 2008, the share of the national vote from whites was 74 percent. That was down from the 77 percent in 2004. In 2012, that 74 percent came down to 72 percent. My guess is that, for 2016, that will come down to 70 percent.
Now the problem with talking about the white vote is that a lot of those states listed have more white voters than the national average. Here they are, from 2008, in descending order:
• Maine (96)
• Vermont (95)
• New Hampshire (94)
• Iowa (91, pickup)
• Minnesota (90)
• Oregon (89)
• Wisconsin (89)
• Washington (83)
• Michigan (82)
• Rhode Island (82)
• Colorado (81, pickup)
• Massachusetts (79)
• Connecticut (78)
• Delaware (77)
• Illinois (73)
• New York (71)
• California (63)
• Hawaii (41)
• District of Columbia (35)
Here, from 2008, are the ten lowest proportion of white votes (ascending order):
• District of Columbia (35)
• Hawaii (41)
• New Mexico (50)
• Mississippi (62)
• Texas (63)
• California (63)
• Maryland (64)
• Alabama (65)
• Louisiana (65)
• Georgia (65)
In 2008, John McCain carried Mississippi, Texas, Alabama, Louisiana, and Georgia. Here were the white voters' percentage of support or Barack Obama in each of those five states (listed alphabetically):
• Alabama 10%
• Georgia 23%
• Louisiana 14%
• Mississippi 11%
• Texas 25%
Nationally, in 2008, Barack Obama received 43 percent of the vote from whites. (John McCain carried whites with 55 percent of their vote nationwide.) It is obvious some areas of the country see Republicans really overperform with whites. But, it is also obvious that some areas of the country see Republicans not perform all that well with whites.
I don't anticipate what Ron Brownstein reports coming to fruition unless the Republican Party realigns their brand to become palatable to states like those in the Rust Belt. The whites in the Rust Belt do not vote the same as those in Old Confederacy states. If whites were voting in unison, the 2008 electoral map would have seen Barack Obama win those Old Confederacy states while the likes of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Obama's Democratic pickup of Iowa, and Minnesota would have likely ended up in the Republican column for John McCain. (Quite possibly, Oregon and Wisconsin could be added.) So, people of particular racial demographics do not vote the same in every state in the nation.
Demographics have been said to be key to winning in electoral politics. I disagree. I think policies do it. The demographics follow. And, lately, the stock is really up for the Democratic Party (and it is really down for the Republican Party) at the presidential level.
= new reply since forum marked as read
