Democrats becoming a two-state party?

posted at 10:12 am on November 17, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

After their loss in the 2006 midterms, plenty of pundits seemed eager to paint the GOP as a regional party, declining in influence on the national scene and representing only the South and most of the Midwest.  In the two weeks after the 2010 midterms, some on the Right have argued that the Democratic Party has retreated to the coasts.  The University of Minnesota’s Smart Politics blog goes further than that.  Eric Ostermeier does a little number crunching and argues that the Democrats aren’t just retreating to the coasts, but have become the party of two states — California and New York:

Despite losing six U.S. House seats in New York on November 2nd (with defeats in NY-01 and NY-25 still tentative), the Democratic Party nonetheless continues to be ever more a party of two coasts – with a particular emphasis on the Empire and Golden States.

A Smart Politics analysis of 81 election cycles dating back to 1850 finds that the Democratic Party is now comprised of a larger percentage of Californians and New Yorkers in the U.S. House than at any point since California joined the Union.

When the 112th Congress convenes in January, 28.1 percent of the Democratic caucus will hail from California (34 members) and New York (20 members).

That marks an increase of 4.8 points from 23.3 percent of the caucus after the 2008 election and 6.5 points since the last Democratic collapse after the Republican Revolution of 1994 (21.6 percent).

If Eric means that the two states will hold an inordinate amount of influence over the Democratic caucus, that may well be true.  Nancy Pelosi won’t let go of the leadership position in the House and she mainly drives the agenda.  But other than that and the sheer number of votes in the caucus from the two states, there doesn’t seem to be much of an argument for the proposition.

It’s also important to remember that the reason these two states have so many Democrats in Congress is because they have so many seats in Congress.  They combine for about a sixth of the nation’s population (almost 46 million by July 2009).  The two states have 72 seats combined in the House, or just under a sixth of the total number of seats.  Since both states tend toward the liberal, it’s not surprising that a substantial number of those 72 will be held by Democrats.

The problem for the Democrats isn’t too many New Yorkers and Californians, but not enough of everyone else, which is the point Eric is making.  But the map of the election shows that Democrats do have a fairly widespread draw, although they are mainly concentrated on the West Coast and Northeast these days:

The incidents of blue show strength in places like the Upper Midwest and even through the mid-Atlantic region.  Democrats do well in high-density urban areas as well, a fact that has not changed in decades and works against the drift towards regionality for Democrats.

The results of the midterms didn’t show Democrats becoming a two-state party any more than 2006 showed Republicans becoming a regional party.  There will be no such thing as enduring majorities any longer, especially with party affiliation declining.  What we saw in the last four years is a burgeoning group of unaffiliated voters who don’t want to be pigeonholed into party labels but pretty clearly want fiscal control and politicians to fulfill their campaign promises of cleaner, lighter, more effective government.  That’s the real news, and it’s good for the US — and the party that heeds the message.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

More counting chickens…

“Permanent GOP majority!!!” – Karl Rove c.2004

(see 2006 & 2008)

mankai on November 17, 2010 at 10:16 AM

Ed, wait until the bankruptcies of NY and CA, and the new Congress’ refusal to bail them out–then judge the fate of the Dems.

ParisParamus on November 17, 2010 at 10:17 AM

And not even the whole state(s).

Tony737 on November 17, 2010 at 10:18 AM

This is why I told people Pelosi will win reelection as Democratic leader. She has 34 votes just from California. It’s hard to imagine the House Democrats NOT electing a leader from California when it is by far the biggest delegation.

rockmom on November 17, 2010 at 10:19 AM

To be fair, a lot of that red has about as many people living in it as one manhattan high rise.

ernesto on November 17, 2010 at 10:20 AM


Democrats do well in high-density urban areas …

Which are the worst (or should I say BEST) examples of what happens when the Donks are in charge for generations. Yet people there keep on voting for these guys.

Tony737 on November 17, 2010 at 10:20 AM

Ed, wait until the bankruptcies of NY and CA, and the new Congress’ refusal to bail them out–then judge the fate of the Dems.

ParisParamus on November 17, 2010 at 10:17 AM

Don’t forget Illinois, another bastian of liberalism. They’re in just as deep as California, if not more so. Unless the lame duck Congress passes a crapload of union bailouts, those three states are in deep doo doo next year and beyond.

Doughboy on November 17, 2010 at 10:20 AM

As a resident of Maryland, I could only wish that this were remotely true.

paulzummo on November 17, 2010 at 10:23 AM

Off topic, and it may go up for a vote today….

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/11/first_healthcare_next_the_food.html

To be fair, a lot of that red has about as many people living in it as one manhattan high rise.

ernesto on November 17, 2010 at 10:20 AM

You’re probably right, but that is fast changing, I think. There has been a lot of out of staters moving to Texas. I’m praying they aren’t libs, infesting though. They destroy a city, or region, then move on to the next thing to destroy.

However, Houston is fast going to become the 3rd largest city in the US, overtaking Chicago. The reason? Jobs!

capejasmine on November 17, 2010 at 10:24 AM

ernesto on November 17, 2010 at 10:20 AM

Manhattan only has one full congressional district. Try again.

BTW Jay Cost has a very good series on each region and how the election turned out. I think he came to a very good conclusion: our nominee should come from the midwest.

TimTebowSavesAmerica on November 17, 2010 at 10:25 AM

To be fair, a lot of that red has about as many people living in it as one manhattan high rise.

ernesto on November 17, 2010 at 10:20 AM

..to be fair, get your Dem comrades to leave the Manhattan high rise and move out there. Maybe the fresh air and undcrowded environs might change their opinions.

The War Planner on November 17, 2010 at 10:27 AM

However, Houston is fast going to become the 3rd largest city in the US, overtaking Chicago. The reason? Jobs!

capejasmine on November 17, 2010 at 10:24 AM

I believe it. For the time being, NYC and California are basically national economies, even nation-states, unto themselves. So long as Lower Manhattan remains the financial capital of the western hemisphere, so long as LA remains a global cultural and media capital, they’ll be able to weather just about any storm while providing jobs for millions. Places like Chicago, on the other hand, don’t have those sorts of global ties. They will whither if they don’t compete with favorable business climates like those found in Texas cities.

ernesto on November 17, 2010 at 10:28 AM

This map is interesting, but is anyone aware of a more detailed map? I love to see a map broken down by districts showing the current office holder and the relative leaning of the constituents. I couldn’t care less about the coasts, but I’m wondering whether some of these blue regions in flyover country shouldn’t be targets for 2012.

BuckeyeSam on November 17, 2010 at 10:29 AM

Don’t forget Illinois, another bastian of liberalism. – Doughboy

Yes, and you oughta see Maryland too … On second thought, don’t bother, it might make you cry.

Tony737 on November 17, 2010 at 10:29 AM

those three states are in deep doo doo next year and beyond.

Doughboy on November 17, 2010 at 10:20 AM

..boy, I say, “bring it on!” One of the perverse pleasures of having that retread hippie be re-elected as governor will be to see him go toe-to-toe with his union pals when California does get flushed on the bailout.

The War Planner on November 17, 2010 at 10:30 AM

paulzummo on November 17, 2010 at 10:23 AM

What you need is for DC to go back to Maryland.

Then you would have a state that’s equally as bad as California and New York.

NoDonkey on November 17, 2010 at 10:30 AM

Let me apologise for my fellow Californians:

Sor-ry, guys!

pseudonominus on November 17, 2010 at 10:33 AM

As a resident of Maryland, I could only wish that this were remotely true. – Paul

So true man. When I take the Beautiful Mrs.737 to Johns Hopkins, we drive through what appears to be Beirut.

Tony737 on November 17, 2010 at 10:33 AM

It is more reasonable to call the Democrats the party of urban areas and given the below quote from Jefferson, it makes sense.

When they get plied upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, they will become corrupt as in Europe.
– Thomas Jefferson

WashJeff on November 17, 2010 at 10:33 AM

TimTebowSavesAmerica on November 17, 2010 at 10:25 AM

You couldn’t fit all of manhattan into one district. Thats why there are 3 that include manhattan.

ernesto on November 17, 2010 at 10:34 AM

HALP ME JOHN KERRY I AM STUK IN NOO YORKE

blatantblue on November 17, 2010 at 10:34 AM

Don’t forget Illinois, another bastian of liberalism.

I’ll agree that Cook County is another bastian of liberalism but Guber Democrat…

Pat Quinn won with only about a 19,000 margin… Republican Bill Brady won every county except three: Cook, Alexander with a difference of just 122 votes, and St. Clair, with a difference of 1,368 votes.

Fallon on November 17, 2010 at 10:34 AM

What we saw in the last four years is a burgeoning group of unaffiliated voters who don’t want to be pigeonholed into party labels but pretty clearly want fiscal control and politicians to fulfill their campaign promises of cleaner, lighter, more effective government.  That’s the real news, and it’s good for the US — and the party that heeds the message.

Fiscal control and cleaner, lighter, more effective government is antithetical to the Big government social-oppressives on the Left.

The really good news is that the Republican party is the closest to that ideal, with it being 180 degrees out of phase with the Democrat’s Marxist ideology.

Chip on November 17, 2010 at 10:35 AM

ParisParamus on November 17, 2010 at 10:17 AM

Add IL & MI to that list, the states where progressives are most dominant are all on the verge of fiscal collapse. The R’s must let them flounder in the morass that they have created for themselves in order to demonstrate the fallacies of the progressive philosophy, clear cut examples of the consequences of collectivist polies must be laid bare for all the to see. Then, and only then, will the left vs right arguement finally be settled and and the steps required to restore the republic be undertaken.

Archimedes on November 17, 2010 at 10:35 AM

And folks wonder why AZ is a porous border…..

cmsinaz on November 17, 2010 at 10:37 AM

The middle in this country is extremely squishy. Even with the disaster known as Obama and the horrifying economic record of the 2006-2010 Dems, the GOP Senate candidates (nationally) were still under 50% (the Dems just under 45%).

Bob Dole won NC by 8 points in 1996 (Bob Dole!). Bush handily won NC in 2000 and 2004 (despite ABC calling NC for Gore early in 2000 on election night… which nobody remembers)… yet Obama took the state with ease in 2008.

In 2004, Bush won NC by over 12 points… 12 points! And this is John Edwards’ home state.

I do not trust the middle in this country and any “models” must understand how squishy it is.

mankai on November 17, 2010 at 10:38 AM

BuckeyeSam on November 17, 2010 at 10:29 AM

Here is the most detailed source for electoral mapping, this is for ’08, but I eagerly await their ’10 analysis.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/

Archimedes on November 17, 2010 at 10:41 AM

To be fair, a lot of that red has about as many people living in it as one manhattan high rise.

ernesto on November 17, 2010 at 10:20 AM

Also to be fair, there are two conservatives for every one liberal.

Patrick S on November 17, 2010 at 10:42 AM

The middle in this country is extremely squishy. Even with the disaster known as Obama and the horrifying economic record of the 2006-2010 Dems, the GOP Senate candidates (nationally) were still under 50% (the Dems just under 45%).

Bob Dole won NC by 8 points in 1996 (Bob Dole!). Bush handily won NC in 2000 and 2004 (despite ABC calling NC for Gore early in 2000 on election night… which nobody remembers)… yet Obama took the state with ease in 2008.

In 2004, Bush won NC by over 12 points… 12 points! And this is John Edwards’ home state.

I do not trust the middle in this country and any “models” must understand how squishy it is.

mankai on November 17, 2010 at 10:38 AM

The middle is usually reliably Republican. I think in 2008 they were disenchanted with Bush and the GOP and fell for the Hopenchange BS. But they’ve learned their lesson and will likely not vote for a Democrat in a national election for a long time.

Doughboy on November 17, 2010 at 10:43 AM

As a resident of Maryland, I could only wish that this were remotely true. – Paul

So true man. When I take the Beautiful Mrs.737 to Johns Hopkins, we drive through what appears to be Beirut.

Tony737 on November 17, 2010 at 10:33 AM

Move to Cecil County — I can sell you a nice house there with an indoor grill! They just threw out almost every Dem in the County gov’t.

Greyledge Gal on November 17, 2010 at 10:46 AM

We need to stop with the “permanent majority” nonsense. It won’t happen. Ever. To either party. The closest either major party have come to being “permanent” majorities were the Dems in the 1820s and the Dems again in the 1930s & 1940s, and even then both time the majority ended up becoming the minority again. Advantages are temporary, not permanent.

AngusMc on November 17, 2010 at 10:46 AM

It’s not a healthy situation.

TheBigOldDog on November 17, 2010 at 10:47 AM

To be fair, a lot of that red has about as many people living in it as one Manhattan high rise.
ernesto on November 17, 2010 at 10:20 AM

If you would be so kind, please identify the Manhattan high-rise that has over 500,000 people living in it (the approximate population of Wyoming, the least populated state).

Ignoramus.

ya2daup on November 17, 2010 at 10:47 AM

The Democrats are the party of the welfare class, urban sophisticates and the professiors. Throw in the public employees you have what we might call the party of the Cargo Cult, smartest guys in the room and the ignorant. California and New York just happen to have the highest number of these three groupings.

jerryofva on November 17, 2010 at 10:48 AM

ernesto on November 17, 2010 at 10:34 AM

After the next census, you’ll maybe get two in Manhattan. BTW, since you’re a resident of NYC, I should thank you for giving FL a gaggle of rich and two new congressional district. We couldn’t have done it without you!

TimTebowSavesAmerica on November 17, 2010 at 10:48 AM

I am waiting for the state bankruptcies. I think that is really going to pit the conservatives against the libs. In OR, we are headed for a heck of a showdown over state employees/unions. Our incoming governor (a retread like Jerry Brown)made promises to his union backers. There is no money for those promises. To the point where school districts are adding furlough days to keep running. As you can see the libs in this state are down the I5 corridor with the rest of the state being red. In this state the fight over liberal spending, union pleasing garbage vs common sense fiscal policy is about to get really ugly.

ORconservative on November 17, 2010 at 10:49 AM

these high concentrations of Democrats are worthy of discussion. I’d hypothesize that Democrats make conditions almost inhospitable for others through their onerous taxes (NY), nanny-state do-gooderism (CA green police), and a history of failed urban areas (Detroit). These phenomena also exist in microcosm on college campuses–areas where conservatives, in general, avoid and the concentration of Democrats resultingly increases, like in Congress. Democrats are a pollution that needs to be diluted. It’s too bad Sean Bielat lost, but there will be other battles that will hopefully cost the blue side more territory. my 2c

ted c on November 17, 2010 at 10:49 AM

More counting chickens…
“Permanent GOP majority!!!” – Karl Rove c.2004
(see 2006 & 2008)
mankai on November 17, 2010 at 10:16 AM

“Democrats govern better”

See economy pre-2006 and post-2006.

DavidM on November 17, 2010 at 10:49 AM

To be fair, a lot of that red has about as many people living in it as one manhattan high rise.

ernesto on November 17, 2010 at 10:20 AM

To be fair, a lot of those people living in a manhattan high rise would be dead if not fed by people in the red areas.

lorien1973 on November 17, 2010 at 10:50 AM

This just confirms my long-held claim that people who keep voting Democrat are dense.

Chickyraptor on November 17, 2010 at 10:50 AM

Don’t forget Illinois, another bastian of liberalism. They’re in just as deep as California, if not more so. Unless the lame duck Congress passes a crapload of union bailouts, those three states are in deep doo doo next year and beyond.

Doughboy on November 17, 2010 at 10:20 AM

Eh…Illinois is more like NY than California. Sure, we have our share of idiot liberals. But virtually the entire state — geographically — is conservative (amazing map).

Then there is Chicago, which is dominated by a Democrat coalition of union/mob white blue collar and government workers + blacks + Hispanics + leftists. And it balanced the state with a 64 – 28 Dem advantage in this past election.

Jaibones on November 17, 2010 at 10:54 AM

Democrats are becoming the “third world city” party … The rest of the country belongs to Americans.

tarpon on November 17, 2010 at 10:55 AM

What state’s are most likely to go into bankruptcy?

ANS: CA, NY, and IL

What party dominates those states Executive and Legislative branches.

ANS: Democrats

Any other questions?

ANS: No.

WashJeff on November 17, 2010 at 10:55 AM

And, actually, that blue spot im Florida is full of nothing but expat New Yorkers. Should they count for the NY total, technically?

tree hugging sister on November 17, 2010 at 10:56 AM

It’s not a red/blue state debate or a CA/NY thing. It’s city vs. non-city. Look at the reddest of red states and the cities are deep red. And even in CA, drive 50 miles away from the ocean and there are plenty of Republicans to be found.

angryed on November 17, 2010 at 10:57 AM

Cities are deep blue that is.

angryed on November 17, 2010 at 10:57 AM

To be fair, a lot of that red has about as many people living in it as one manhattan high rise.

ernesto on November 17, 2010 at 10:20 AM

You’re right. And besides they’re all inbred, racists with a 3rd grade education. Come to think of it, nobody outside of NYC should even have the right to vote.

angryed on November 17, 2010 at 11:00 AM

Redistricting – along with the democrat party going full retard rather than move toward the center – will make that map a lot more red come 2012.

Rebar on November 17, 2010 at 11:05 AM

The significant factor driving all this is that the Dems have become radically liberal. Choosing Pelosi after the election shambles is indicative of a party that has lost all good sense. The Dems are caught up in their own destructive web of political correctness, and they can only appeal to the 20% of radical ideologues and to the self-interested, such as unions.

The only way such a party can gain power is to run a Manchurian candidate such as Obama, that has the ability to project a false face and fool the people. But that trick can’t be accomplished too often, and they’ve had their run. Once burned, the public will be shy for a generation. Unless they pull a gargantuan attack on the Constitution, it’s going to be a long time in the barren wilderness for the “emerging Democrat majority”.

paul1149 on November 17, 2010 at 11:09 AM

And, actually, that blue spot im Florida is full of nothing but expat New Yorkers. Should they count for the NY total, technically?

tree hugging sister on November 17, 2010 at 10:56 AM

Since many of them vote in both New York and Florida electinos, you may have a point.

Vashta.Nerada on November 17, 2010 at 11:11 AM

I can’t begin to describe how happy it makes me to see NH red again. Maybe now we can get some control over our spending, education funding and business climate.

jeanie on November 17, 2010 at 11:12 AM

A good post. We need to avoid thinking the Democrats are dead. Many of us thought that in 1994, and look where it got us.

WannabeAnglican on November 17, 2010 at 11:13 AM

That’s like saying that the GOP is just a Texas, Florida, and California party since combined, they make up more than 25% of the GOP House conference.

Apologetic California on November 17, 2010 at 11:13 AM

Speaking of Texas, what’s going on with TX-27?

Rebar on November 17, 2010 at 11:15 AM

lorien1973 on November 17, 2010 at 10:50 AM

And it takes less and less actual people to do the feeding, as time goes on, not to mention the fact that those farmers wouldn’t exactly make much of a living without demand from downstate.

ernesto on November 17, 2010 at 11:16 AM

the Democratic Party is now comprised of comprises a larger percentage

There is no such thing as “comprised of”.

John the Libertarian on November 17, 2010 at 11:17 AM

A congressional district map sized by population would be a better visual before any analysis of marginalization.

Vashta.Nerada on November 17, 2010 at 11:24 AM

The incidents of blue show strength in places like

I think you mean

The incidence of blue shows strength in places like

TallDave on November 17, 2010 at 11:26 AM

♫♪ You’re living in your own Private Idaho.

Get out of that state. Get out of that state.

You’re in. ♪♫

– The B-52s

viking01 on November 17, 2010 at 11:34 AM

Add IL & MI to that list, the states where progressives are most dominant are all on the verge of fiscal collapse. The R’s must let them flounder in the morass that they have created for themselves in order to demonstrate the fallacies of the progressive philosophy, clear cut examples of the consequences of collectivist polies must be laid bare for all the to see.

Michigan just elected a Republican Governor (Snyder) by a wide margin, so maybe Michiganders have already seen “clear-cut examples of the consequences of collectivist pol(ic)ies” after “flounder(ing) in the (Granholm) morass”. Let’s see what Gov. Snyder can do for the state–who knows, he might be another Chris Christie for Michigan.

As for Illinois, there’s the huge corrupt cesspool of robber barons from Chicago, some of whom have invaded the White House, who get millions of votes in the ‘hoods, then there’s the rest of the state, which votes slightly right of center, something like Indiana. Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert was from Illinois! Does the rest of the state have to “flounder in the morass” to atone for the sins of Shy(ster)town? Illinois just elected a Democrat Governor (narrowly) and a Republican Senator (narrowly). The battle between the huge bastion of liberal sheeple on the dole, and the hard-working conservatives spread more thinly through the rest of the state, and it’s just about a wash. What Republicans need to do in a state like Illinois is get the message out loud and clear to downstate voters that Chicago corruption is costing THEM money, and convince enough Chicago voters that Democrats are dragging their once-beautiful city down into misery and poverty.

This is a similar problem in Senate races in other states whose population is dominated by one or two huge cities, surrounded by conservative voters elsewhere:

California (LA and SF)
Illinois (Chicago)
Louisiana (New Orleans)
Maryland (Baltimore)
Michigan (Detroit)
Missouri (St. Louis and Kansas City)
Nevada (Las Vegas)
New York (NYC)
Pennsylvania (Philly and Pittsburgh)
Washington (Seattle)

To win these states, Republicans need to come out with a well-explained message that can win a substantial fraction (not necessarily a majority, but at least 35-40%) of urban voters, that conservative policies can lift their cities out of the morass, then work for huge turnouts in the conservative-leaning suburbs and rural areas.

Steve Z on November 17, 2010 at 11:38 AM

If the trend continues to strengthen, look for the push to get rid of the Electoral College to get a whole lot louder too.

HakerA on November 17, 2010 at 11:40 AM

I believe it. For the time being, NYC and California are basically national economies, even nation-states, unto themselves. So long as Lower Manhattan remains the financial capital of the western hemisphere, so long as LA remains a global cultural and media capital, they’ll be able to weather just about any storm while providing jobs for millions. Places like Chicago, on the other hand, don’t have those sorts of global ties. They will whither if they don’t compete with favorable business climates like those found in Texas cities.

ernesto on November 17, 2010 at 10:28 AM

The problem is that as people move from NY or CA to these places for jobs, they vote for the same policies that killed the jobs where tehy came from. So, in 20 years conservative states will start to elect dems who vote for job killing high taxes and spending and idiotic regulations, it will kill the jobs and these people will once again be dumbfounded how it all happened.

NY and CA can only weather the storm to the extent that the rest of teh country is willing to pay for their idiotic policies and regulations. Left to themselves, both states would end up bankrupt. But, of course, liberals never understand why the 2 most liberal states with the most liberal regulations, spending and taxing are always doing so poorly financially and shedding jobs like crazy. If we just had more regulations and taxes, surely everything would be better.

Monkeytoe on November 17, 2010 at 11:40 AM

We have a serious state worker issue here in NY.

Education, metro, LIRR, all totally abused systems.

blatantblue on November 17, 2010 at 11:47 AM

We have a serious state worker issue here in NY.
Education, metro, LIRR, all totally abused systems.
blatantblue on November 17, 2010 at 11:47 AM

I believe the old joke was that “State Worker” is a contradiction in terms.

Chip on November 17, 2010 at 11:52 AM

I don’t know what is going on in CA, try going out to eat on a Friday or Saturday night and get seated quickly… Doesn’t happen. Try finding a clunker, everyone seems to have a new car. I think CAs are living on borrowed time and money. This is turning into the ultimate moocher state. My husbands and my state taxes doubled last year but the people who don’t pay still don’t pay. That is not fair. This is why I support consumption taxes vs income taxes, with consumption taxes everyone pays!

CCRWM on November 17, 2010 at 11:54 AM

Now would be a great time for that big earthquake that will make CA an island, that way we could at least keep them isolated.
NY??? just let it bury itself LIBS/DEMS eventually self destruct, bankruptcy, I don’t want my tax dollars bailing them out of their hole.

You reap what you sow.

concernedsenior on November 17, 2010 at 11:54 AM

From what I can see Democrats are getting stuck on one side of the old Urban/Rural divide… now probably characterized as the Interstate By-pass Divide, with suburbia now the ones being targeted.

If you live inside the Interstate By-pass you tend toward centralization and urban thinking and if you are on the other side you tend towards rural thinking. Needless to say the political class doesn’t like this and are going to target suburbia to become new urban centers once they are densified.

ajacksonian on November 17, 2010 at 11:58 AM

The Dems are becoming the Urban Union Party, not two state party. (UUP). One only needs to look at how the intended effect of financial regulations isn’t so much about changing the way financial markets operate as it is corralling all the rural and semirural bank’s wealth back into the urban fold by making it more and more difficult to operate a stable bank outside of the big cities. Ditto with how ecoregulations operate — greenies live in the big cities and are generally uneffected by the difficulties their regulations create on suburban, rural and ruralish folks.

drfredc on November 17, 2010 at 12:02 PM

Steve Z on November 17, 2010 at 11:38 AM

Exactly. Rossi lost because of King County. The GOP should focus on how to get that 40% from urban areas and latinos. If that’s achieved, dems are finished.

TimTebowSavesAmerica on November 17, 2010 at 12:04 PM

I believe the old joke was that “State Worker” is a contradiction in terms.

Chip on November 17, 2010 at 11:52 AM

Which reminds me of a friend who worked at a state agency who told me that whenever anyone (of the public) asked him “How many people work here?” he would usually answer “About fifty percent.”

viking01 on November 17, 2010 at 12:15 PM

The biggest issue, I think, with getting the urban vote, is having real, tangible results of conservative policy lifting people out of desperation. I’m sure Texas has some stories like that, and NJ may soon.

But, the biggest problem in presenting those stories are the hundreds of other stories where conservative policies were either corrupted by liberal ones, or shackled by them. And that gives libs the ammo they need to ‘inform’ the uninformed on why those conservative principles are ‘bad’. More and more people just don’t inform themselves on all sides of things, so they are more susceptible to these lies.

Once we can answer that dilemma, the sky’s the limit. But I fear that it will be too difficult, and time-consuming, if it is even possible at all. There is too much liberalism built into the system. And again, all it takes is one ‘failed’ conservative (no matter if that failure is due to the crippling effect of liberalism), for the progressives to trumpet that to the wind, and make it ‘fact’.

kerncon on November 17, 2010 at 12:28 PM

This is a similar problem in Senate races in other states whose population is dominated by one or two huge cities, surrounded by conservative voters elsewhere:

This is the problem in the northeast to a large degree. Boston(and other smaller cities) dominate MA, NYC dominates NY, Providence dominates RI, New Haven and Bridgeport dominate CT. It’s dis-enfranchised the rural and ex-urban voter for decades. Solutions?

jeanie on November 17, 2010 at 12:29 PM

CCRWM on November 17, 2010 at 11:54 AM

That’s a sad tale and one that shows no sign of changing. I suspect we are all subsidizing CA’s profligate living level in one way or another. Someday it will all come crashing down–I’d find it hard to feel sorry for most Californians though. I have relatives outside of SF who complain endlessly about things in their state and run out and vote Dem. Go figure!!!

jeanie on November 17, 2010 at 12:35 PM

Take that map and overlay data points showing incidence of abortion clinics in relative size to population, and you will see how Democrats are killing themselves off at a rate with which replacment cannot keep pace. It’s that simple.

I’m not saying that’s a good thing, either. The country, inevitably needs more than one strong party. But secular humanists do not a strong party make, because their self-centered, not self-sacrificing.

Western_Civ on November 17, 2010 at 1:07 PM

their they’re

Western_Civ on November 17, 2010 at 1:07 PM

We need to stop with the “permanent majority” nonsense. It won’t happen. Ever. To either party. The closest either major party have come to being “permanent” majorities were the Dems in the 1820s and the Dems again in the 1930s & 1940s, and even then both time the majority ended up becoming the minority again. Advantages are temporary, not permanent.

AngusMc on November 17, 2010 at 10:46 AM

We don’t need a permanent majority for a political party. If the Democratic party loses enough elections, it will start purging out the progressives. If the Democratic party were conservative, I wouldn’t mind them being a majority party. But as long as Democrat implies socialistic, big government, surrender-happy, immoral, and power hungry, I hope they lose consistently.

The Democrats actually adapted in 2006, but it was by electing more conservative Democrats that the progressives kept out of any real power. They lost in 2010 because the general public finally caught on to that game. Since that effort has reached its end, Democrats will either have to become more conservative or keep losing elections.

Would a permanent majority for a political party even be healthy, though? The moment one party feels like it has a firm grip on power, it will start abusing its power. And if the Republicans are the only political party that caters to conservatives, we’ll see power shift back to the Democrats all over again.

tom on November 17, 2010 at 1:09 PM

Exactly. Rossi lost because of King County. The GOP should focus on how to get that 40% from urban areas and latinos. If that’s achieved, dems are finished.

TimTebowSavesAmerica on November 17, 2010 at 12:04 PM

While I am no authority on Rossi or King County (Seattle?) I suspect that after redistricting occurs this won’t be an issue. My only hope is that the republicans will be less ostentatiously corrupt than the democrats at gerrymandering.

samuelrylander on November 17, 2010 at 1:11 PM

concernedsenior on November 17, 2010 at 11:54 AM

I wonder what the american economy would look like without NYC and CA

ernesto on November 17, 2010 at 1:14 PM

Why is Maine blue in that map? The GOP won the governor’s office, Maine statehouse, and senate, and of course we have Collins & Snowe…

Buy Danish on November 17, 2010 at 1:17 PM

The thing that fills my Californian heart with pure chest-thumping pride is how the rest of the country is completely subjugated to the whims of just three of our most important cities — San Francisco, Beverly Hills and West Hollywood.

All of you, do not shed a tear for California. Shed it for yourselves. We come not to praise you, but to bury you in political correctness, crushing taxation, suffocating command-and-control systems, and endless advice for having lousy sex.

And such will continue to be the case until you people in the other states wise up and demand federal election laws be changed to:

1) require voters to produce proof of identity and citizenship at the polls

2) require that polling-place monitors be empowered to verify that the ballots actually cast throughout the day are the exact same ones that get counted after the polls close

3) require abolition of vote-integrity-destroying “Motor Voter” and “Early Voting” laws.

FlameWarrior on November 17, 2010 at 1:57 PM

Why is Maine blue in that map? The GOP won the governor’s office, Maine statehouse, and senate, and of course we have Collins & Snowe…

Buy Danish on November 17, 2010 at 1:17 PM

Hmmm, living in the past I suppose.

Many many Democrats have not yet figured out what exactly the current Democrat party is all about.

I don’t know why it is so hard to give up the Democrat party label. There was some good branding going on in the past I guess…

…because I know there are parts of Arizona that will never associate themselves with the “dirty Republicans fat cats…” but have zero points of agreement with the current Democrats, and everything in common with Republicans.

That is the value of the Tea Party. It can overcome that deep resentment toward the Republican label… and they may say they aren’t really for the Republicans but if they have to choose a platform they want government out of our lives.

petunia on November 17, 2010 at 2:03 PM

Why is Maine blue in that map? The GOP won the governor’s office, Maine statehouse, and senate, and of course we have Collins & Snowe…
Buy Danish on November 17, 2010 at 1:17 PM

The map shows House districts’ outcomes for 2010.

ya2daup on November 17, 2010 at 2:03 PM

I wonder what the american economy would look like without NYC and CA

ernesto on November 17, 2010 at 1:14 PM

Perhaps you should also ponder where NYC and CA would be without Federal cash-infusions, such as the $5 Billion used to make California’s 2011 Budget “balance”……

dmh0667 on November 17, 2010 at 2:08 PM

The Lt. Governor elect in Vermont is about the only Republican left in Montpelier, so you might want to consider that bastion of liberalism as yet another Dem state. The Governor elect is a liberal Democrat and both houses of the legislature are overwhelmingly Democrat – to the point where there’s no need for the handful of Republican representatives and senators to even show up.

GoldenEagle4444 on November 17, 2010 at 2:38 PM

I wonder what the american economy would look like without NYC and CA

ernesto on November 17, 2010 at 1:14 PM

The real question is… what would California look like if they hadn’t gone off the liberal deep end?

Quote from Forbes:

California voters essentially ratified a political and regulatory regime that has left much of the state unemployed and many others looking for the exits.
California has drifted far away from the place that John Gunther described in 1946 as “the most spectacular and most diversified American state … so ripe, golden.” Instead of a role model, California has become a cautionary tale of mismanagement of what by all rights should be the country’s most prosperous big state. Its poverty rate is at least two points above the national average; its unemployment rate nearly three points above the national average.
This state of crisis is likely to become the norm for the Golden State. In contrast to other hard-hit states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Nevada, which all opted for pro-business, fiscally responsible candidates, California voters decisively handed virtually total power to a motley coalition of Democratic-machine politicians, public employee unions, green activists and rent-seeking special interests.

California should be leading us into an age prosperity, instead it is a basket case of fiscal irresponsibility.

It seems California wants to be more like Mexico than the United States:

Mexico should be a wealth productive country… they have wonderful natural resources a beautiful culture… but they are not the Eden they could be because of bad government.

This is the exact path that California is following. Corrupt government makes a place poor. Why can’t people wake up to see the damage cause by Democrat policies? It is just so stupid!

petunia on November 17, 2010 at 2:50 PM

These mushy middle “unaffiliated” voters are hardly strong advocates of fiscal responsibility or anything else. They bend like a willow in the wind, depending on which way it is blowing.

Oh, sure, you can get poll after poll showing they are 100% for “fiscal responsibility” as a concept – who isn’t? But the devil, as always, is in the details. Start spelling out specific program cuts and tax increases and watch the support peel away like the layers of an onion.

When a Congress makes the hard choices and gets reelected, maybe I’ll start believing these fickle “independents” are mature enough to face reality. Not holding my breath, though.

Adjoran on November 17, 2010 at 3:19 PM

Speaking of Texas, what’s going on with TX-27?

PRI voters.

Bartrams Garden on November 17, 2010 at 10:16 PM