Demographics
Stunning turnout throughout the West
In a release, the DNC points out that turnout on Super Tuesday was stunningly high throughout the West -- which bodes well for the general election.
• In Colorado, Democrats saw twice the number of caucus-goers as Republicans—119,184 to 55,845. Yesterday’s turnout was eight times higher than that of turnout from 2004 when only 15,000 participated. [Denver Post, 2/6/08]• In Idaho, 21,224 people caucused for Democrats, far exceeding anyone’s expectations, and forcing officials to print more ballots. [AP, 2/5/08; cnn.com, 2/6/08]
• In Arizona, 368,828 people turned out for Democrats, far exceeding the record of 239,000. [cnn.com, 2/6/08]
• In New Mexico, more than 152,000 ballots were cast, far surpassing the 2004 number of 104,000 in 2004.
• And in Utah, 122,617 people came out for Democrats, far exceeding the 33,839 who participated in the 2004 primary. [cnn.com]
It's going to be a good year.
Kari Chisholm | February 6, 2008 | Comment on This Post (2 so far) |
The Continued Rise of the Southwest
America’s population is making a diagonal shift from the Northeast to the Southwest. Five of the nation’s largest cities are in the Southwest: Los Angeles, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego, and San Jose. Phoenix is now that nation’s fifth largest city, displacing Philadelphia, now at number six. Mesa and Fresno are now bigger than Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Buffalo. Seven of the ten largest American cities lie within 500 miles of the Mexican border. In 1910, in contrast, the ten largest American cities were all within 500 miles of the Canadian border.
What this means to the Democratic Party is that the Northeast and Midwest aren’t a sufficient base by themselves for the future of the party. With the GOP dominating the once solidly Democratic South, Democrats must look Southwest for growth and electoral majorities. Arizona, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico have a combined 29 votes in the Electoral College and a corresponding number of seats in the Senate and House of Representatives. Moreover, the 2010 Census will undoubtedly raise that number beyond the current 29. Meanwhile, neighboring blue California’s population will continue to grow, reaching perhaps 60 million by 2050 with a Hispanic majority possible by 2042.
Newsweek is already predicting that the 2008 Presidential race will be decided in the Southwest. Their analysis:
The rise of the Swing-State Southwest (and the power of the Latino voters in it) is a function of timing, geography, demographics—and the Electoral College....The Southwest's ascendancy is linked to one key demographic: its vast, rapidly growing—but still politically unsettled—Hispanic vote….Generally speaking, [Hispanics are] culturally traditional, religiously devout and open to conservative appeals from the GOP. Economic populists, all too familiar with the trials of race-based discrimination, they feel an emotional bond with Democrats, too….In 2006 the Hispanic vote that went to the GOP dropped precipitously, to 30 percent. The war in Iraq was one reason, analysts say, but the main one was the war over immigration.
Given the mean-spiritedness of the recent immigration debate, the trend away from the GOP is likely to continue and even accelerate, strengthening the future Democratic base in the Southwest.
Leo Brown | July 11, 2007 | Comment on This Post (3 so far) |
In the West, the next generation turns blue
The Denver Post has a great editorial by our pals Matt Singer and Steve Fenberg. They take an interesting look at the changing demographics of the West:
The Millenial Generation, generally characterized as Americans born between 1978 and 2000, is the largest in American history. And as Millenials grow up and enter the voting booth, they are reworking the political landscape of the Mountain West.In Montana, Millenials are credited with Sen. Jon Tester's margin of the victory. These voters made up 17 percent of the electorate and went for Tester over Republican incumbent Conrad Burns 56-44, according to exit polls.
In Arizona, Jim Pederson lost to Republican Jon Kyl, but young voters broke for Pederson by 15 percent.
In Wyoming, a state that hasn't sent a Democrat to Congress since 1978, Gary Trauner nearly upset Barbara Cubin. If young voters had their way, Trauner would be Wyoming's new congressman. They backed Trauner by 16 percent.
Here in Colorado, young voters went for John Kerry over George W. Bush, the only age bracket to do so.
Just seven years ago, Republicans had a near lock on the region, holding every governor's office in the region. One by one, they've fallen to Democrats so that Democrats now hold the governorships of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico - a solid trail of mountain states tracking from Canada to Mexico.
It should come as no shock that this Democratic ascendance would track closely with the coming-of-age of the region's Millenials. The instincts of the Millenial Generation are at direct odds with the Sagebrush Rebellion mentality that has governed the West for the past 30 years.
Kari Chisholm | July 10, 2007 | Comment on This Post (2 so far) |
Arizona, Nevada and the West are the fastest growing
Arizona grew by 3.6 percent last year and Nevada grew by 3.5 percent. And the West outstripped every other region in growth, including the South which had half of the top ten largest gainers, but also the largest loser, Louisiana.
The Baltimore Sun also notes the topsy-turvy nature of Arizona politics that is beginning to favor Democrats:
Long a Republican stronghold, Arizona now has a moderate Democrat as its governor. Democrats picked up two congressional seats in last month's midterm election, and voters rejected a ballot initiative banning gay marriage.Arizonans are used to a certain amount of political turmoil caused by the constant influx of new residents, said Marshall Vest, an economist at the University of Arizona in Tucson.
"Whenever you have a vote on any particular issue, you never know what it's going to be," because a large chunk of the electorate has just arrived, he said.
Emmett O'Connell | December 22, 2006 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) |
The Big Blue Line
With Ciro beating Bonilla in the TX 23 tonight, there is a big blue line from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico (except for one district in New Mexico) that has elected to send Democrats to Washington. Including two new ones this year.
A big part of the West, El Norte is Blue.
Emmett O'Connell | December 12, 2006 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) |
The New West Project
This is wonderful:
The New West Project, headquartered in Denver, will conduct research and develop strategies to secure and exploit recent Democratic gains in the Western states, party sources said.At least four Western governors - Janet Napolitano of Arizona, Bill Richardson of New Mexico, Brian Schweitzer of Montana and Bill Ritter, Colorado's governor-elect - are expected to lead the group's advisory council, the sources said. Incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, Sen. Ken Salazar of Colorado and other members of Congress will provide "strategic guidance."
Reid confirmed the creation of the new organization, which he said would "build upon the leadership of people such as governors Napolitano, Richardson and Schweitzer" and "work to focus attention on the West."
This is a high level group. Consider the Western Strategy in play, my friends. It is wonderful to see this sort of institutional arrangement that will only benefit our local, state and national candidates long term. It looks like part think tank, part strategy firm, part communications development - all aspects that will be welcome by the plethora of candidates that will be running these next few cycles to take advantage of our our new promise out here in the west.
The best part of the article? The quote from an unnamed "Western Democrat":
As an example of what the new organization may do, the Western Democrat said that political professionals would analyze such questions as "the difference between first- and second-generation Hispanic voters, ... what motivates them and how we communicate with them," as well as "why a recent transplant from California, who has voted Republican all her life, is now voting for Democrats."
Good question, "Western Democrat" - it just leaves me amazed to see our namesake invoked so strikingly in an article. Methinks the author of the article, John Aloysius Farrell , might just be an reader of our humble site. If so, thanks for the article John - we'll be watching for you in the future.
It's great to have a new project designed for this express purpose and examining the multitude of new questions that are arising from the new political climate in the West. Now, if any of those people involved in the project are paying attention it would behoove them greatly to include netroots and blog outreach as an element of the project. You see, since major political focus has been absent from the West for awhile the netroots and blogosphere have been proliferating and recruiting top candidates all over the place. It would be an essential element of any plan that you should put together.
I'm excited.
Here's the The New West Project!
Landon Mascareñaz | December 6, 2006 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Hispanics, Health Care and Winning the West
Can we have a serious debate about Health Care in our country? If you had followed the 2004 election - you'd probably think not. But things are changing...
As health care becomes a larger and larger issue for most Americans, we are likely to see the dimensions of the health care debate take on a greater electoral value. According to the Albuquerque Tribune:
The survey of 800 registered Latino voters in states, including California, with the highest density of Latinos showed a striking level of concern over access to quality, affordable health care...Access to health services is seen by 91 percent of Latino voters as a basic human right; 87 percent believe that the government should guarantee that right...
Significantly, with control of Congress at stake this fall, a substantial majority of Latino voters - 62 percent - say they would be more likely to support a candidate for Congress who supported universal health care coverage even if it meant having to raise taxes to pay for it.
This has major implications for the Western United States. Arizona, California, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada all have large hispanic populations and are some of the fastest growing states in the country.
Western Democrats should champion health care and win, win, win.
There is some sort of bizarre notion universal health care is some rich, white liberal obsession that comes out only in the Democratic presidential primaries and then should vanish as a true issue around when the general election comes around. Consultants be damned - Democrats, especially Western Democrats need to lead on this issue. What a study like this shows is that this issue has an ability to unite various groups into the Democratic column during election season and beyond.
Mitt Romney has won praises from the pundit class from his health care victory-of-sorts in Massachussetts. There are various aspects to be critical of his plan, but he did it, plain and simple. The last thing we would want in the entire world would be to get pre-empted in the health care debate instead of walking into the next election with a full-throated support for universal health care (maybe state based?) and supporting it a basic right.
George Lakoff argues in Moral Politics that some issues are cascade issues because they accomplish a policy task with a simple aim and then proceed to affect other outcomes (hence the cascade). Health care is a simple cascade issue. With an American universal health care system, we can cover everyone and create a society of greater health. Furthermore, it has positive implications down the ballot line for other candidates that offer full support toward coverage among a fast growing democraphic group. Also, it increases the electoral possibilities for victories in crucial swing states based on that fast growing demographic. It also could possibly thwart the efforts of conservatives to successfully woo Hispanics into their fold.
I'll be watching and waiting for a Western governor to take on the health care issue full-on and play the presidential foil to Romney's own ambition. C'mon Sweitzer, Richardson, Kitzhaber, Napolitano...the West, the Democratic Party and dare I say the Nation are waiting.
Landon Mascareñaz | July 14, 2006 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) |
DLC report argues for the West
As we've been arguing here at WesternDemocrat, it's critical to change the political map. If we continue to rely on the solid Northeast, the solid West Coast, and the 18 or so swing states, Democrats will continue to lose at the national level.
The DLC has just released a new report that argues the same:
We believe it is important that Democrats look at the country as it is, and as it is likely to be, and dedicate themselves to an effort to expand their ranks into what has previously been considered "enemy territory."
From the report itself, the Ken Salazar win in Colorado is "success story #1":
Centrist Attorney General Ken Salazar of Colorado took away a Republican Senate seat in 2004, winning 52.4 percent of the vote against GOP nominee Pete Coors, even as John Kerry, in a performance that exceeded Al Gore’s, won just 47.6 percent of the vote.Salazar’s win was clearly not attributable to better performance in Democratic base areas.
His total vote exceeded Kerry’s by 79,456; the two big Democratic base counties, Denver and Boulder, contributed only 4,362 votes to that margin. Heavily Republican and incredibly fast-growing Douglas County, with 39 percent VAP growth from 2000 to 2004, alone contributed 5,764 votes.
Appendix 2 divides Colorado’s counties into five groups based on VAP growth rates between 2000 and 2004. The first quintile (11 percent VAP growth) produced 46,832 more votes for Salazar than Kerry, well over one-half of his statewide margin. The second quintile produced another 17,371 votes. In percentage terms, the same picture is evident. In large Colorado counties, Salazar’s percentage of the vote exceeded Kerry’s by 2.7 percent in Democratic counties, by 5.3 percent in marginal counties, and by 4.2 percent in Republican counties. In smaller counties, he improved on Kerry’s vote by 3.6 percent in Democratic counties, by 5.8 percent in marginal counties, and by 8.3 percent in Republican counties.
Ken Salazar’s advantage over Kerry in large Republican and marginal counties was really the difference, since together they gained 169,000 in VAP, even as large Democratic counties lost 20,000 in VAP.
Salazar’s campaign placed special emphasis on his law enforcement experience, his national security views, and his mainstream cultural values, helping him address several persistent voter concerns about the Democratic Party. This strategy paid off in significantly lower Republican margins in fast-growing counties.
Kari Chisholm | May 26, 2006 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Latinos like Dems, but not as much as I'd like them to
Latinos like Democrats three times more than Republicans, and it has to do with Tom Tancredo and his Southern, immigrant not liking friends (Houston Chronicle):
Because Hispanic voters are turned off by the conservative-led push for tougher penalties on illegal immigration, they are more likely to support Democrats than Republicans in November, according to the 2005 National Latino Survey released Thursday.Regardless of a political candidate's views on issues such as gay rights, the economy, taxes or health care, a candidate's views on immigration will rank as the most important among Hispanic voters, said Robert Deposada, president of The Latino Coalition, a Washington-based nonprofit organization that commissioned the survey.
The press release:
"Being in touch with the Hispanic community"Republicans in Congress (2005): 16 percent
Democrats in Congress (2005): 57 percent
President Bush (2004): 37 percent
John Kerry (2004): 37 percent
This is important in the West because, well, Arizona, California, New Mexico, etc, etc, are a huge part of the El Norte region.
I'm not sure what a great score would be on the "represents my interests" question (maybe around 80 percent), but its easy to see that just about half of Hispanics don't think either party in Congress represents them. Great for us if we think Hispanics will hold their nose and vote for a Dem over a GOPer, but it looks like we can try a bit harder though.
Emmett O'Connell | January 8, 2006 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
The West is not the South: Religion Edition
If you accept the premise of MassInc in their setup between Western Republicans and Southern Conservatives, you see it somewhat bases along the lines of religion:
...Sagebrush has had to compete with Southern Comfort for the soul of the Republican Party. One difference between the two regions is that Sagebrush seems more ambivalent toward religious conservatism. Goldwater himself expressed disdain for Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority during his last Senate term, and another senator from Arizona, John McCain, pretty much burned his bridges to fundamentalist groups during his 2000 presidential run.
But, the math problem isn't simply a libertarianism lacking religion in the West and a religious based conservatism in the South. The Sagebrush region, where that quote is taken, is only one of three political regions in the West (the other two being El Norte and the Coasts). If you take into consideration the entire West, most importantly, Idaho and Utah, and New Mexico, Arizona and Colorado, you see some very real divisions between the South and the West. Namely, Catholics and Mormons see politics differently than evangelical Protestants.
A little while back I wrote about how a Latter Day Saint like Massatuchets Governor Mitt Romney, would have problems making it through the Republican primaries, because Southern Christians don't consider him a real Christian:
The Southern Baptist Convention website categorizes the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a "cult" that is "radically" different from historic, biblical Christianity. A faith guide issued by the influential Christian right group Focus on the Family declares that "God cannot be identified . . . with the Mormon religion's notion of god." The Focus on the Family website features a guide for teaching Christianity to children that lumps Mormons in with pagan worship. And each year, evangelical organizers behind the National Day of Prayer bar Mormons from speaking at their proceedings.
Colorado Luis also points to a rif between James Dobson of Focus on the Family and Catholic Senator Ken Salazar:
The last time Salazar went toe to toe with James Dobson and FoF, he pointed out anti-Catholic remarks that had been made by a member of the FoF board, and I observed at the time that Salazar was driving a wedge between Protestant fundies and the Catholics they are trying to unite under a right wing Christian banner. Today's "Eighth Commandment" reference -- which had to be explained by the Rocky's reporter for the Protestant readers -- is a return to that theme. Salazar is sending a message to his fellow Catholics that his attackers are a bunch of Protestant fundies. This won't help Focus one bit, and it probably will help give Salazar a little political cover the next time the archbishop goes after him.
I can't speak for Mormons, but I assume the one uniting political theme that brings most people of these three general faiths together is abortion. If you move beyond that, though, you see some real room to move for Democrats. In the Catholic sphere you've seen in the last couple of weeks real splits with Southern based Christian ideas of what politics is all about.
For example Catholic priest recently stood up against Bill O'Reilly on his War on Christmas theme, calling it a "very minor issue" and going on to bemoan the holiday has been hijacked by commercialization. On the immigration issue, the catholic bishops called on congress to ignore enforcement only solutions.
Emmett O'Connell | December 18, 2005 | Comment on This Post (2 so far) |
South(western) Strategy, and Tancredo is a Southern shill
When Ken Mehlman said sorry he felt bad about that entire “Southern Strategy” thing, he never really expected racist white Southerners not to vote GOP. Truth be told, had he spoken in front of the Alabama GOP instead of the NAACP, the last 40 years in the South for the GOP would be talked about as great times, not something to be ashamed of.
Now Mario at nuestravoice.com sees a repeat of the last 40 years in the Southwest:
The “Southern Strategy” used code words and phrases to deliver its racist anti-African American message to bigots. The GOP was able to hide its play to the lower selves of white southerners with the words “quotas”, “crime”, and “welfare queens”. The words may have been precise but the message was broad. The word was “crime” but the image was African American men. The phrase was “Welfare Queen” but the message was about African American women. The word was “quota” but the message was keep them out of “our” schools.In the “Southwestern Strategy” the words are about immigrants. It may be the border that is being “patrolled” by “minutemen” but we all know that it is an attack on our community in general. The words may be “border risk” and “illegal invasion” but the “Southwestern Strategy” plays at the meta level like the “Southern Strategy” and the idea is Latinos, all of us legal or not, are not welcome.
The GOP was clear to African Americans attending the NAACP conference that the “Southern Strategy” was a racist ploy designed to push bigots to the polls. Why aren’t the Repubs ready to admit the truth about the “Southwestern Strategy”.
Mehlman is a man smart enough to understand the “Southern Strategy” therefore the “Southwestern Strategy” must be clear to him. So Kenney boy where is our apology?
Absent an apology it seems Mehlman, Rove, and Bush not only understand the real meaning of the code words, they have gone and made room for them in the GOP big tent.
What I don’t get is that from a strategic point of view, what does this get the GOP? In the South, playing racial politics got them the South because pissed off white racists where a big enough slice of the pie to push the entire region. I’m not so sure that’s the case in the Southwest or even the broader interior West.
I’m convinced this entire immigration thing isn’t about winning the Southwest as much as solidifying the South. Most of Tancredo’s pals in his immigration caucus are from the South, not the West.
Emmett O'Connell | August 10, 2005 | Comment on This Post (2 so far) |
Arnold losing among Latinos
From Nuestravoice.com:
The Orange County Register is reporting on 2 polls that show that Arnold the Fundrais-a-nator is losing Latinos in califas.Arnold had taken a bite out of the normally Democratic Latino stronghold.
The question now is will history repeat itself for top Arnold advisor Pete prop 187 Wilson?
Wilson moved Latinos away from the Califas Repub party in droves when he was Governor. Arnolds veto of the immigrant drivers license bill was as popular an idea as, lets say, prop 187. However, if you remember, after 187 was passed it was soon seen as a direct assault on Latino immigrants. The assault was later taken to heart by even Latinos that had voted for 187. The rest, as they say, made California Republican Party history. Likewise the veto of the driver’s license bill was popular but may in retrospect look like an assault on working Californians that need a way to get back and forth to their jobs.
This really shouldn't surprise anyone, given Gov. Schwarzenegger's recent poll numbers and the GOP's track record with using Latinos to win white votes, except maybe for the folks that are hoping for Republicans to make inroads with Latino voters. If a moderate Republican from a large blue state can't do it, who can? Especially with Tancredo looking so Presidential lately, I have high hopes for the GOP.
Emmett O'Connell | July 29, 2005 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Democrats in Utah called Saints
Not just in Utah, but across the West from Idaho to even rural Washington counties, those crazy Mormons hold sway in politics. No Democrat will win statewide in Utah without convincing a good number of Saints that they have good stuff.
But, what a lot of Republicans overlook is that being a Mormon in the West isn't the same as being a Baptist in the South. Like Catholics, for one thing, Mormons have a very strong social care ethic that can be translated into not so Republican politics.
Better said in the New West:
“Thinking out of the box can help win elections. A leftist Utah is a fantasy, but a moderate Utah is doable...Ben McAdams, a corporate security lawyer who lives in New York City, proudly identifies himself as both a Mormon and a Democrat. He points out that the Democratic party ruled Utah in the late 1800s, so Mormon leaders began a campaign to encourage Utah’s faithful to vote Republican. “They saw a need for a two party system,” McAdams says. “I’ve seen the church taking similar steps today.” He explains how a high-level church leader made sure a photo of him standing with Sen. Reid was widely published to demonstrate that “you can be a good Mormon and a Democrat.”
McAdams says that in order to recruit Mormon voters, the Democratic Party needs to convince voters that individual candidates do not represent the standard black and white platform issues. “One of the challenges is to convince people that you can vote based on a candidate, and core set of issues,” he says. “Just because you vote for a Democrat, doesn’t mean you have to support everything every Democrat ever said.”
While the Democrats may not have a big toe hold right now in the LDS church, it does say a lot that among Western Democrats, LDS members have a pretty big strong hold. Among their ranks include the strongest Democrat in Utah (well, duh) and arguably, the most powerful Dem in DC, Harry Reid. And, while he might not be the most famous Udall, Tom Udall of New Mexico isn't a dullard either.
Emmett O'Connell | July 14, 2005 | Comment on This Post (3 so far) |
Hispanics Turning Back to Democrats
Over at Donkey Rising, Ruy Texeira has a great discussion of the political shifts among the rapidly-growing Hispanic/Latino voter demographic - of obvious importance to the West.
Consider the results of the new Democracy Corps poll of Hispanic voters. In that poll, Hispanic voters who express a preference for the 2006 Congressional elections currently give the Democrats a 68-32 edge in the two-party vote. The rest of the poll tells us why Hispanic support for the Democrats has become so lop-sided.Hispanic voters give Republicans an average feeling thermometer (0=coldest; 100=warmest) score of 48 and Democrats an average score of 60. And 63 percent of these voters identify with or lean towards the Democratic party compared to just 31 percent who identify with or lean towards the Republicans.
Not only is there a shift underway, but there are methodological problems that have overstated the shift toward the GOP in 2004.
These figures do indicate that 2004 was a good year for the GOP among Hispanic voters in comparison to the recent past. But the extent of GOP progress is sometimes exaggerated by using 1996 as a benchmark for comparison to both 2000 and 2004. This is problematic not only because Clinton’s 72-21 margin in 1996 was anomalously high, but also because Hispanics were defined differently in that year than they have been subsequently.This difference is not widely understood and deserves some explanation. Here is the basic story: prior to 1998, the exit polls used a single race question (“Are you white, black, Hispanic/Latino.....”) to capture Hispanics, as opposed to a race question plus another question on whether the respondent is of Hispanic descent or not, which has been included on exit polls since 1998. The change in methodology allows the exit polls to capture more Hispanics, but, since those Hispanics who do not identify themselves as Hispanic in the race question tend to be more conservative than those who do identify themselves as Hispanic in that question, it makes the expanded sample of Hispanics post-1998 more conservative than the pre-1998 samples.
Got that? Therefore to compare pre-1998 Hispanic exit poll figures to post-1998 Hispanic exit poll figures is a little bit like comparing apples and oranges. A better comparison can be obtained by looking at just the Hispanics who self-identify in the race question, since that is common to all the exit polls.
With such a comparison, 1996 remains the high point, but the fall-off to 2000-04 is less severe. Indeed, the Hispanic presidential vote, defined in this way, has averaged 64-35 Democratic in these two elections, actually more strongly Democratic than in the two Reagan elections of 1980-84, when the Hispanic presidential vote averaged 61-35 Democratic.
And in the next election following Reagan’s relatively good performances among Hispanics–1988–the Hispanic presidential vote moved sharply Democratic to 69-30. Don’t be surprised if we see the same kind of trend in 2008.
Read the entire piece at Donkey Rising.
Kari Chisholm | June 28, 2005 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) |
Mother Jones: Why the Democrats Will Keep Losing
In a thoughtful, but misguided, piece over at Mother Jones magazine, Steven Hill cries 'Woe is us!' and tells us Why the Democrats Will Keep Losing.
The basic thesis? That the U.S. Senate (and by extension, the Electoral College) award disproportionate power to small states - thus throwing the Senate and the Presidency to the GOPers, despite higher vote totals for Democrats.
So from the Democratic Party perspective, the political geography does not work. In the current climate of Red vs. Blue America, any "emerging Democratic majority" must overcome an 18th-century political system that puts urban-centered Democrats at a decided disadvantage. As I wrote above, it's like having a foot race in which one side (the Republicans) begins 10 yards in front of the other (the Democrats), election after election. It's time to level the playing field.
So, he's crying out for amending the Constitution. Now, that's all well and good, but does anyone really think that three-fourths of the states will vote to reduce small-state power in the Senate and the Electoral College? (The 38 "biggest" states would have to agree - and that includes states with five electoral votes like Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and West Virginia.)
Of course, Steve misses the larger point. The small-state math is exactly why the Western Democrat project is so important. If we continue to rely on a big state strategy, we will continue to lose.
If Democrats are going to regain a majority in the U.S. Senate and a majority in the Electoral College, Democrats have to find a way to win in the small states.
And as everyone who reads Western Democrat knows, our best hope lies in the West.
Take the Kerry '04 states, add Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico. We win - without Ohio and without Florida.
Kari Chisholm | June 20, 2005 | Comment on This Post (7 so far) |
Antonio Villaraigosa and the West
This is bordering on old news, but Antonio Villaraigosa was elected Mayor of LA, the first Hispanic elected there in modern political history. And, this means something for Democrats in the West, I'm just not totally sure what.
Suffice to say, when I break the West down into its three politcal regions (based on the MassInc maps), we spend a lot of time talking about Sagebrush, not so much on Upper Coasts because we might consider it safe territory, but we nearly never mention El Norte.
Villaraigosa's election (ironically soon after I finished reading "The Latino Wave") got me thinking about El Norte again, and this is something we really need to start talking about. I know why I haven't talked about it so much, knowing that I might come off sounding like a well meaning, white liberal, who just wants to say the right thing. But, that is not a good enough reason not to at least inquire.
So, what does Villaraigosa mean?
More info on Antonio Villaraigosa:
Antonio Villaraigosa Elected L.A. Mayor (Yahoo News)
Antonio Villaraigosa for Los Angeles Mayor 2005
Villaraigosa in Wikipedia
A Latin Powersurge (Newsweek)
Will Arnold have a harder time winning reelection, especially given his rather interesting comments on the Minutemen recently? From Bob's Blog:
Last week in a phone call to a radio station, Schwarzenegger told the radio audience: "I think they’ve [Arizona Minuteman Project] done a terrific job."Bush Jr. has called the Minutemen vigilantes. But Schwarzenegger disagrees and has denounced the job that Bush Jr. has done at the border. Geez Arnold, you went to Ohio last October for Bush Jr. and just half a year later you’re "dissing" him?
Law enforcement has denounced the Minuteman Project because these vigilantes are roaming the desert with "six guns" on their hips and six-packs in their R.V.’s
Bring together a bunch of "angry" men, mix in guns and alcohol and you know at some point there will be a tragic accident.
Schwarzenegger’s comments will only encourage more people, including some crackpots, to head to the Mexican border with guns.
What does this mean for Bill Richardson, who actually lent some troops (through the New Mexico Dems) to Villaraigosa during the campaign. Will Richardson (who is now joined by Villaraigosa as the two most prominent Hispanic politicians in the country) have an easier time with a possible California primary now that Villaraigosa has shown his stuff?
Anyway, this is where I'm at. We just can't forget the West doesn't just mean Brian Schweitzer, though Brian is super cool.
Emmett O'Connell | May 22, 2005 | Comment on This Post (9 so far) |
Splitting the Sunbelt
William H. Frey of the Brookings Institute, and Ronald Brownstein of the LA Times, poke a big ol'Dixie sized hole into the good old Western Democrat theory by pointing out that the Old Dem bastions of the rust belt (snow belt) are losing population and the South, (Florida and Texas) are seriously gaining people. And, the West is also so darn empty that any population growth out here isn't likely to result in any electoral math changes, outside of California and Arizona.
While I would tend to argue that the Red/Blue state analysis is a bit simplistic -- some states that are solidly in the red (such as North Carolina, Virginia and the entire freaking Mountain West) and purple (Washington, Oregon) wil shift by 2030 -- their argument of demographic changes away from the old bastions of the party is sound, and it actually backs up why we need to go West.
Brownstein's argument ignores that the Western Democrat theory is as much about changing the culture of the Democratic Party as much as it is about electoral math.
Yes, we need to compete outside of the blue counties, and the West is a place we can do that. But, this isn't about Eastern Dems coming West and showing them what we're made of, its about Western Democrats showing the rest of the Party how to win.
By going West, by moving out of the urban and old suburban counties on the coast, we are working against "ced(ing) huge blocks of states to the other side," as Ruy Teixeira says. The West leads to the rest of America.
Emmett O'Connell | May 16, 2005 | Comment on This Post (3 so far) |
The Unchurched West
From Luis:
This probably could be one of those Western Democrat "West Is Not The South" piece...
Yes! Especially if I make it one. More:
I came upon this report about the increase in the percentage of Americans who claim no religious affiliation -- and it points out that of the six states with the highest percentages of non-religious people, five of them are located in the West.Using the nifty USA Today interactive map, it looks to me like those five states are Washington (25% have no religion), Colorado (21%), Oregon (21%), Nevada (20%) and Wyoming (20%). (The non-Western state on the list is Vermont at 22%). Just after that would be California and Idaho at 19% non-religious.
So think about it -- Focus on the Family is trying to throw its theocratic weight around in a state that is tied for third in the percentage of people who claim no religious affiliation whatsoever.
Focus on the Family is making the same mistake that tons of Republicans will be making (we can only hope) in the next four years. By leaning the religious right on the West, they will be surprised by how lacking their support is out here. It's not simply the secular humanists that make Seattle so much fun, but those in the Sagebrush area as well that won't support them. Westerners, even western conservatives, aren't as religious or politically conservative religious, as non-Westerners.
Emmett O'Connell | May 3, 2005 | Comment on This Post (4 so far) |
Fighting for Joe Six-Pack...
...not Billy Brie-and-Chablis, or as he prefers to be known, William H. Brie-and-Chablis III, Esq.
In a great piece over at the New York Review of Books, Thomas Frank, the author of What's the Matter with Kansas? asks "What's the matter with liberals?"
His answer: Somewhere along the way, we stopped fighting for the little guy.
Kerry's pallid strategy offered little to motivate the party's traditional liberal and working-class base, but revulsion against Bush was assumed to be reason enough to get out and vote. And besides, such an approach was supposed to protect the Democrat from the inevitable charges of insufficient toughness.A newcomer to American politics, after observing this strategy in action in 2004, would have been justified in believing that the Democrats were the party in power, so complacent did they seem and so unwilling were they to criticize the actual occupant of the White House.
Republicans, meanwhile, were playing another game entirely. The hallmark of a "backlash conservative" is that he or she approaches politics not as a defender of the existing order or as a genteel aristocrat but as an average working person offended by the arrogance of the (liberal) upper class. The sensibility was perfectly caught during the campaign by onetime Republican presidential candidate Gary Bauer, who explained it to The New York Times like this: "Joe Six-Pack doesn't understand why the world and his culture are changing and why he doesn't have a say in it."
These are powerful words, the sort of phrase that could once have been a slogan of the fighting, egalitarian left. Today, though, it was conservatives who claimed to be fighting for the little guy, assailing the powerful, and shrieking in outrage at the direction in which the world is irresistibly sliding.
I'm not sure I'd choose "egalitarian" - but rather "populist."
This populist approach is, of course, a hallmark of Western Democrats like MT Governor Brian Schweitzer, NM Governor Bill Richardson, Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi, and CO Congressman John Salazar.
As we've argued again and again, it's the cultural approach, stupid. Again, cue Thomas Frank:
Now it was the Democrat whose aristocratic lifestyle was always coming into question, who couldn't seem to take a step without detonating some explosive reminder of his exalted position. And it was Republican operatives who were gleefully dropping the word "elitist" on the liberal at every turn for his affected, upper-class ways. For his supposed love of brie cheese. For his wealthy wife's supposed unfamiliarity with chili. For his mansion. His yacht. His windsurfing. His vacations with celebs on Nantucket Island. The secretary of commerce said he thought Kerry "looks French."
The House majority leader made a habit of starting off speeches with the line, "Good afternoon, or, as John Kerry might say: 'Bonjour!'" The NRA came up with an image that brilliantly encapsulated the whole thing: an elaborately clipped French poodle in a pink bow and a Kerry-for-president sweater over the slogan "That dog don't hunt."
George W. Bush was authentic; John Forbes Kerry, like all liberals, was an affected toff, a Boston Brahmin who knew nothing of the struggles of average folks. Again and again, in the course of the electoral battle, I heard striking tales of this tragically inverted form of class consciousness: of a cleaning lady who voted for Bush because she could never support a rich man for president.
For more on the cultural argument, dive in to some earlier Western Democrat commentaries:
Let us look West, Democrats
Western Democrats are not Dixiecrats
Meet the Salazar Brothers
The Marshall Plan
The Pace Picante argument
Connecting across the urban/rural divide
The Los Angeles Times and the Western Voice
Kari Chisholm | April 29, 2005 | Comment on This Post (3 so far) |
Three Western Dems from the three Wests
I just noticed something in the last few days and I've been pondering if it means anything. The three Western Dems that we've talked about the most being Presidential candidates in '08 or beyond are from the three very distinct political regions (as defined by MassInc).
Gov. Bill Richardson representing El Norte, in more way than one.
Gov. Brian Schweitzer from Sagebrush, and
Gov.Ted Kulongoski from the Upper Coast.
Does this mean anything? It might.
My first thought is that which ever perfect Western Dem candidate we choose might indicated what region we see as the defining Wesetern region. So, in turn, we see our candidate as the key to unlocking the Western door for Democrats.
Also, it could be simple bias. We prefer one region, delliberatly or not, over another and the Governor from that region just appeals to us. That said, my bias certainly isn't for the Southwest region, but I'm pulling for Richardson, probably because he's a great Western Dem, a great Dem and an unbelievably qualified candidate, outside of his region and party.
Emmett O'Connell | March 17, 2005 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) |
Think Western Exurbs are for Republicans?
No, Trix are not for kids, and the rapidly urbanizing West, especially exurbs can be a place for Dems to flourish.
From AFP:
The "exurbs" have become a key electoral factor in states such as Ohio and Colorado, as they have overwhelmingly become support bases for Republican presidential candidates over the past two decades.But Jefferson County, like similar "exurbs" across the country, could change its colours and support Democratic candidate John Kerry and not Republican President George W. Bush in Tuesday's election, Democrats say.
"Jefferson County could be a big surprise in these elections," said Steve Haro, communications director for the Colorado Democratic Party.
"There has been a big urbanistic change, more minorities are spreading out to the rural fringes of the city of the region," he said.
This story was from Oct. 31, apparently some kind of pre-election spinning by Dems to fight the apparent success Republicans have had in the exburbs. Interesting what actually happened, though.
Kerry lost in Jefferson County, pretty handedly, 52 to 46 percent. But, Ken Salazar won over Pete Coors, 51 to 48, and Congressman Mark Udall beat the Republican 58 to 40 percent. In the other two house races, Republicans were favored.
Also, two of the three state senate seats voted on in Jefferson County went to Dems, but ten state house races, Jefferson County voters like six Republicans and four Democrats.
So, it’s a pretty mixed bag in Jefferson County, but not an entire loss.
Emmett O'Connell | November 30, 2004 | Comment on This Post (5 so far) |
Bill Richardson: A Western Primary?
There's a great article by the Miami Herald's Andres Oppenheimer over at HispanicBusiness.com. In the piece, he shares the news that New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson is working to develop a Western primary (as suggested by Emmett here).
Richardson is leading an effort by four Western states -- New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and Arizona -- to hold a regional primary in the first week in February 2008, shortly after the Iowa and New Hampshire contests. Most of these states have large Hispanic populations and can be won by either party.
Beyond that, Oppenheimer - who usually writes about Latin America - points out that Richardson would help drive the Democrats to the West; and would help the Party regain its footing among Latinos.
Oppenheimer called Richardson and asked him the magic question:
When I called Richardson earlier this week and asked him whether he would run, he told me, "My main concentration is the New Mexico Legislature in January, and my re-election as governor in 2006. Beyond that, who knows?"
My translation: He's running like crazy.
Kari Chisholm | November 23, 2004 | Comment on This Post (4 so far) |
How A Democrat Can Win The West.... like 16 years ago
Don't be ethnic: Emphasizing your ethnic roots plays well in the East, but not here.
Whaaaaa?
We like to think that the West was built by blue-eyed rugged individualist pioneers. When you talk about your roots, you remind us that most of the West was built by immigrants, fresh off the boat, who got ten cents an hour for backbreaking twelve-hours days of mining coal or smelting ore. We don't want to think about this.The winning of the West ought to be simple for any presidential candidate. All he has to do is pay homage to our myths. What he actually does won't matter. Ronald Reagan knows that, and if Michael Dukakis is as smart as people say he is, maybe he'll figure it out before November.
I don't know how much of this, or really any of it, applies to today. Maybe some of it if you're talking about the deepest and darkest of Sagebrush, but I don't really think it applies much to more urban Sagebrush or El Norte.
Either way, it's a look back, and its funny.
Emmett O'Connell | November 15, 2004 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
A short note on race, and why I'm a moron sometimes
Venting on the difference between the South and West earlier this week I said:
For one thing, we don't have the racial politics that followed the Civil Rights Act and built Nixon's Southern coalition and has been shooting Yellow Dogs in the south for more than 30 years. Mississippi Burning was not filmed in New Mexico. I'm not saying that the West doesn't have its own racial issues, they just aren't the same ones that are driving white men from Democratic ranks in the South.
I think that line on Mississippi Burning not being filmed in New Mexico was especially misleading. No, New Mexico would have its own special film on race. So would Washington State for that matter. No region here is innocent of our history, I wasn't trying to imply otherwise.
That said, we're still not the South, and Western Republicans by in large didn't ditch the Democratic party because we fought for civil and voting rights in the 1960s. Take that Zell Miller.
Emmett O'Connell | November 14, 2004 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Win The West, Move to Grand Junction
This could be taken two ways.
An urban rag again getting it really wrong and advocating a move (much like the Guardian and Clark Co. Ohio) that would turn out pissing more people off than actually doing any good.
Or, a tongue in cheek tour of logic in order to point out that so called "Red States" are not actually that Red. Forty percent of voters in Red States voted for Kerry and that Red States in the West (take Nevada and New Mexico) are actually very close.
This new city--which will be the fourth largest in the U.S., if all 2.33 million stranded Kerry voters take the plunge--will join with Denver in swinging Colorado, easily turning the state's nine electoral votes blue just in time for 2008. Hopefully, with the help of another even swingier state, like Iowa or Ohio, the newly blue Colorado will put the Democrats over the top to win the White House. But it gets even better: During the next census, in 2010, the new residents of Grand Junction will be counted, and Colorado's now solidly blue electoral-vote share will grow, securing the Democratic future of America by becoming the West's Massachusetts, a well-populated true-blue state. As a side benefit, we'll be siphoning off people from the red states, dinging their economies, and hopefully lowering their electoral-vote share.
This also echos the truth about the West, that urbanization is happening and driving politics away from the heritage of the Sagebrush Rebellion and to the politics of moderation.
Mass Inc divided the country into ten political regions, the west falling into three: El Norte, Sagebrush and Upper Coasts (which is shared between the Pacific Northwest and New England...ughhh). My theory goes is that as Sagebrush (the fifth most urban and the fastest growing region with most growth in the cities) and El Norte (second most urban and third fastest growing) get more urban, it will be easier for Democrats to win statewide offices in those regions, because the cities will drive where the states go.
I'm not so sure about Congressional seats, because often times those are drawn for partisan safety. But, even if many Western congressional seats are left in the hands of Republicans, if they are held by particularity crazy Bob Dornan types, Dems can use them as counterweights for statewide elections.
Emmett O'Connell | November 12, 2004 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
From Colorado Luis: Why are Colorado Chicanos so damned liberal?
If the exit polls are to be believed, George W. Bush's share of the Latino vote in Colorado was the lowest of all of the states with large Latino populations -- a mere 30%. (The next lowest number would be 32% in California, according to the same polls.) Now, there is good reason to suspect the exit polls are wrong, especially when it comes to the so-called Hispanic vote. The best example is Texas, where Bush supposedly increased his share to 59% -- an improvement of 16% since 2000 -- while losing the most heavily Latino border counties to Kerry by wide margins. MORE
Emmett O'Connell | November 12, 2004 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Interesting, deep piece
Rocky Barker argues that eventually -- around 2011 -- Republican tendencies towards smaller government will eventually backfire in the West. In this piece from headwaters.org he argues that Democrats are in the upswing out here.
He cites centrist Democrats, such as Bill Richardson in New Mexico, Dave Freudenthal in Wyoming and the conditions in Montana that led to this year's victories out there as the early wave against the rabid anti-government dogma of Western Republicans. But, he reminds us, Democrats in the West don't win by being like other Dems:
Make no mistake: Republicans will remain strong in the West, no matter what happens to the rural economy. Rural areas in the West grew by 20 percent, largely due to immigration from California. Most of the people who left California were Republicans, who oppose high taxes. They brought their jobs or their retirement incomes with them.But Democrats don't naturally appeal to their concerns about family values and their distrust of government. These voters and their children will become an increasing part of the political mix in Western states in the next two decades.
Democrats in the West do two things when they succeed: talk about "responsible, grown-up government" as a counterweight to the crazy ravings of anti-government zealots and tap into the concerns of new Westerners for protection of the environment, but not sound like a card carrying member of Earth First!
Barker also notes that the west is growing. On my note: the South is growing, the West is growing. The Northeast and the Midwest are not.
Emmett O'Connell | November 7, 2004 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
