(One year out from the 2010 elections, this is a continuation of a two-week series dreaminonempty is conducting on the demographics of the American electorate - promoted by Chris Bowers)
In 2008, 90% of John McCain's votes came from white voters. However, while the Republican relied primarily on white voters, only 55% of them voted for him.
Coincidentally, 55% is also the percent of babies born in the US in 2008 that were non-Hispanic white, according to Census estimates.
That just doesn't bode well for Republicans.
Here's how it looks:
Click to enlarge.
On the left, results from the 2008 exit polls. On the right, the decreasing share of the US population that is non-Hispanic white. Explanations below the fold.
(A really great look at the diverse roots of our progressive majority, and how it has been constituted by historical struggles over time. - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
A (now long-ago) comment by fladem (pointing out that Obama won all the states that Lincoln won in 1860) led to this diary. What if the last election had taken place under the laws and customs that existed in most states in 1860? In other words, what if only white men could vote in 2008?
Now, that really is an alternate history question, so what we're seeing here on the left is how white men did vote in 2008, an election where everyone voted. On the right, how all those who gained voting rights after the Civil War voted - that is, non-whites and white women.
Click to enlarge.
The take home message: expanding voting rights - a progressive position - resulted in the ability to elect more liberal politicians. Below, more details and what this has to do with unions.
(In confluence with Chris's thesis about the growing demographic Democratic base, here's the latest from Project Vote. - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
The United States saw dramatic increases in voting from traditionally underrepresented groups, including minorities and young voters, according to a new analysis released this week by Project Vote. If borne out by systematic analysis of the voter rolls, this change in the electorate is evidence of the power of successful voter registration drives and an indication of the strong inclination of voters to participate in the process when candidates address their issues.
This has been a good election for map lovers. The New York Times has a great set of graphics that shows not only results but changes from the previous four elections.
I've put together a few cartograms and gone back to the 1988 election to see what changes we've had in the last 20 years.
Click to enlarge.
Not too much red there anymore, is there? The rest of the maps, and six conclusions to bicker about below.
We don't tend to pay much attention to state and local politics here at Open Left. When I post the occassional diary about something happening at the Port of Los Angeles, it doesn't usually draw more than a couple of comments--even though it involves trade, the environment and labor issues. And so it is that state-level races haven't gotten much attention here this cycle, either. But with 11 governors and 5,824 legislative seats up for grabs, I felt it wouldn't be too much to put up one overview diary--and give a chance for others who know more about specific states to add their wisdom in the comments. (This means YOU!) Coming off of 2006, Democrats control 55% of the seats, and we'll be electing roughly half of the state senators who will be involved in redistricting after the 2010 census. So this has obvious national significance.
Democrats control both chambers in 23 states compared to 14 for Republicans. In 12 states, party control is divided. Nebraska is unicameral and non-partisan.
In the last two weeks voter registration and early voting has shown that voters are geared up and ready to take part in what has been called a "historical event" on November 4.
Yesterday, I met Reagan Democrats waiting on line in Pittsburgh who are happily voting for Obama.
They're finally fed up, disgusted and know the whole thing was nothing more than a bunch of bullshit and one big con game on the American people.
Doors opened at 3PM at the Mellon Arena.
But before we got in, we waited on line. And what do you do on a long line? You talk to the people around you. I talked to two woman who had come from a Pittsburgh suburb about an hour away. They were unabashed Republican. One said, "they've (the Republican Party) destroyed us". Her Republican friend was a "straight up" healthcare voter.
Then they grabbed me by the arm and whispered, "we're Obama Republicans, don't believe what you read in the papers. So are lots of our neighbors, I'm positive there are thousands of us here."
The Mellon Center arena seats 16,958 for ice hockey, 17,132 at standing room capacity. It was PACKED!
In Minnesota's tight race for the Senate, Norm Coleman is depending on millions of dollars from CEOs and wealthy business interests to fund his campaign. CEOs of Target, Supervalu, Best Buy, 3M, General Mills, and Pepsi all flooded Coleman's campaign with cash. Meanwhile, his challenger Al Franken maintains a healthy base of support from in and out of the state, without receiving a dime from Minnesota's CEOs.
It looks like the Twin Cities business community wants to give Sen. Norm Coleman a second term, at least if campaign contributions are any indication.
The Republican incumbent has drawn far more financial support from local executives than Democratic challenger Al Franken has, according to campaign finance records. In fact, CEOs from the state's 50 largest public and 50 largest private companies combined to donate more than $100,000 to Coleman and not a penny to Franken [...]
Business political action committees (PACs) also overwhelmingly supported Coleman. These groups gave $2.5 million to Coleman and just $15,000 to Franken.
Why the disparity between CEOs support for this Senate seat? It turns out CEOs are banking on Coleman to protect their veto powers in the workplace, while Franken supports rebuilding the middle class.
In comments Friday to Chris's diary, Presidential Forecast, October 24th , fladem argued that there was a much greater chance of later volatility in the race than people were anticipating, that historically, there was a 50% chance of a 5-point swing or more, which could go either way, and that therefore McCain had a 25% chance of winning, rather than the 3.7% that 538.com is projecting.
It's good to be challenged like this, with a well-considered data-driven argument. It makes you think more carefully, and not get intellectually lazy. That said, I think it's pretty clear that fladem is wrong on this one, and I want to quickly run down why. The reasons range from macro to micro, but most of all, they gain from being mutually reinforcing. Fladem's argument and my response on the flip.
Swift Boat funder Robert Perry, a top national Republican donor, is funding overtly racist attack mail this cycle. It's not Swift Boating. It's Race Boating.
A group called "Empower Texans," chaired by Tim Dunn of Midland, an associate of Republican Texas House Speaker Tom Craddick, attacked Democratic state House candidate Joel Redmond of Pasadena with a direct mail piece featuring fuzzy images of black and Hispanic lawmakers (plus Barack Obama), several black birds resembling crows, and a picture of the white Redmund. The tag line: "Birds of a feather flock together."
Anyone with any racial sensitivity gets the meaning of the mailer: Redmond has betrayed whites by befriending people of color. He can't be trusted.
This is happening in the Houston area, down the road from Tom DeLay. George Bush's hometown. While an African-American, Barack Obama, is the Democratic nominee for president.
Today's Race Boaters aren't like the Swift Boaters. They ARE the Swift Boaters. Bob Perry. Tom DeLay. Tom Craddick. The same people whose 2002 campaign funding scheme led to Tuesday's guilty plea from the Texas Association of Business, another organization with close ties to the Race Boaters. That plea came from the same investigation that led to the indictment against DeLay.
Waiting until the night before the election is too easy. Making predictions in July is just plain stupid. Making predictions two weeks out is just right. So let's see what you've got.
Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) unveiled a hard-hitting new radio ad yesterday in response to CEO-funded attacks on the middle class.
Ellison's radio ad stands up for the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill that would help rebuild the middle class by making it easier for people to form or join unions.
Ellison shows his true colors by standing up for this core progressive value. Here's how he closes the ad:
"Politicians who support the Employee Free Choice Act, like me, want to provide a fairer way for working men and women to rebuild America's middle class. I urge you to support candidates who support the Employee Free Choice Act and to reject the lies of those CEOs who want to continue lining their pockets while they keep picking yours."
Note: Polls have tightened some since I wrote the first draft of this on Friday, but there's nothing below that I would change at this point, having tweaked it already a wee bit this morning.
As we've now entered the last three weeks of the campaign, an instructive comparison can be made to where we were just entering the last three months of the campaign, when I wrote a diary, "Swing State Clusters Tell Story of Potential 'Map-Changing' Obama Landslide". (Some maps from that diary reappear on the flip.) Obama's lead in the national polls is up from where it was, as is his projected margin in electoral votes. But the number of Red States potentially in play has plummeted dramatically. There is fairly straightforward explanation for this--the normal consolidation of the bases, combined with the drop in undecideds as low-info voters finally tune into the race. But on the flip I argue for a slightly more nuanced exaplanation. To kick things off, here are the basics in visual form:
National Polls
Chris's Presidential Forecast 07/29
Electoral College: Obama 264, McCain 172, Toss-up 102
National popular vote: Obama 47.2%-41.6% McCain
Chris's Presidential Forecast 10/18
Electoral College: Obama 349, McCain 166 Toss-up 23
National popular vote: Obama 49.8%--43.2% McCain
We are 25 days from an election. At the Jefferson-Jackson dinner you talked about how important this election is, and how we need to send Becky Greenwald and Rob Hubler to Congress, and return Bruce Braley (IA-1), Dave Loebsack (IA-2),and Leonard Boswell (IA-3). In your own race, nobody has ever heard of your hapless opponent, he has no money, and he is going to lose big. So I have to ask, why are you sitting on a campaign warchest of more than $4 million? Why aren't you doing everything you can to turn Iowa blue?
Regardless of his background, it was never a problem for anyone - including Republicans and Chicago's most powerful business leaders - to work with Ayers on Chicago's public schools. In fact, Ayers is widely respected in the field of urban education.
"It was never a concern by any of us in the Chicago school reform movement that he had led a fugitive life years earlier," said former Illinois state Republican Rep. Diana Nelson, who worked with both Obama and Ayers over the years. "It's ridiculous. There is no reason at all to smear Barack Obama with this association. It's nonsensical, and it just makes me crazy. It's so silly."
As the NPR story reminds us, here's what Sarah Palin said:
"Our opponent is someone who sees America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who targeted their own country,"
By Palin's so-called "logic," the same could be said of Nelson, too. No wonder she thinks it's silly.
STATE BLOGS
