Heavily Democratic states cut in half since 2008: Gallup
posted at 1:36 pm on February 21, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
Hope and Change has struck the Democratic Party in a big — and unexpected — way. Gallup analyzes its poll data from 2010 on party affiliation to look at the shift in each state, and the news is almost uniformly bad for Democrats. Almost every state has had a decrease in voter affiliation for Democrats, most of those significant, and the number of solidly-blue states has been cut in half:
Gallup’s analysis of party affiliation in the U.S. states shows a marked decline in the number of solidly Democratic states from 2008 (30) to 2010 (14). The number of politically competitive states increased over the same period, from 10 to 18, with more limited growth in the number of leaning or solidly Republican states. …
Even with Democratic Party affiliation declining during the past two years, Democratic states still outnumbered Republican states by 23 to 10 last year, and there were 14 solidly Democratic states compared with 5 solidly Republican states. …
Looking more closely at the changes in state party affiliation since 2008, only one state moved from a Democratic positioning to a Republican positioning — New Hampshire, which was solidly Democratic in 2008 but now is considered leaning Republican. Alabama, Kansas, Montana, and South Dakota moved from a competitive designation to solidly or leaning Republican status. A total of 12 states — Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Missouri, Nevada, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin — shifted from solidly or leaning Democratic to competitive. No states have moved in a more Democratic direction since 2008. (A listing of each state’s classification for 2008, 2009, and 2010 is available on page 2 of this report.)
So much for 2008′s supposed political realignment. Barack Obama now appears to have profited from Bush fatigue more than any move of the country to a center-left position on the political spectrum. Most states show Democrats losing ground, even in the 14 states that are solidly Democratic.
That gives Obama some bad portents for his 2012 re-election campaign. It also puts Democratic control of the Senate after the 2012 elections an even more remote outcome. In key states, Democratic incumbents face tough fights — or where some Democrats have retired, an even tougher fight for an open seat. Using Gallup’s historical tool to look at these key states, we can track the problem on both levels:
Forgive the order in which I entered these, but do look at the impact of these affiliation changes in key states. In five states that Obama won in 2008 (VA, IN, FL, WI, OH), the change in party affiliation change outstrips Obama’s margin of victory — which would result in a flip of 81 electoral votes. Adding in Pennsylvania, where the difference is under a single percentage point, Obama loses 101 EC votes in the next election — which would result in a Republican victory.
Republicans also look strong in races with Democratic incumbents, especially in Wisconsin and Ohio. Florida looks promising, and even in Pennsylvania, the GOP has closed the gap considerably heading into 2011. Republicans barely lost in Washington in 2010m but may have enough momentum to seriously challenge Maria Cantwell for her open seat. Claire McCaskill looks especially vulnerable in Missouri.
Much will depend on the GOP’s ability to deliver on their promises in the House this year for fiscal discipline, and the Democratic attempts to subvert and thwart those. If they can accomplish that, Republicans may pick up even more momentum into 2012 and put more Senate seats — and Electoral College votes — in play.
Update: I should have noted it above, but the EC totals I use are the post-Census numbers that will be in play in 2012.
Related Posts:
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
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Sweet. How sweet it is.
Finally, Obama’s chikkinzzz are coming home to roost.
petefrt on May 19, 2013 at 8:22 PM
This.
When you have to plead incompetence to defend against charges of malfeasance, you know you might be in trouble.
petefrt on May 19, 2013 at 8:36 PM
ear relevant…
driguana on May 19, 2013 at 8:59 PM
Flush this lying tudd down the drain with the rest of the Obamacrap.
kemojr on May 19, 2013 at 9:34 PM
This was Dan Pfeiffer’s week in the barrel, like Susan Rice he was given the White House talking points and sent on a mission. He really needs to get copies of these tapes and watch them and see how foolish and unbelievable he looked and sounded. The White House is losing the little credibility it still had by sending these shills out every week trying to do damage control. Community organizers make poor leaders.
savage24 on May 19, 2013 at 9:42 PM
Pfeiffer’s statement that the law is irrelevant because the IRS conduct was “outrageous” and “inexcusable”, tells us all we need to know about this administration.
However, the follow-up should have been, “On what standard do you judge their conduct to be outrageous and inexcusable since the law is apparently not an appropriate standard?” (At least in Pfeiffer’s mind.)
What this comes down to is this: “if the Administrative deems something “outrageous” and “inexcusable,” then it is declared such. As we have seen in so many other areas, if the Administrative deems something to not be “outrageous” and “inexcusable,” then it is declared such.
In their mind, the law is – in fact – irrelevant. That’s what makes this situation so dangerous.
It’s not socialism. It’s worse.
EdmundBurke247 on May 19, 2013 at 10:36 PM
Irrelevant = “What Difference Does It Make?”
jaydee_007 on May 19, 2013 at 10:41 PM
A fitting capstone to Ed’s story about loss-prevention (aka employee theft) and management’s “permission structure” in this post.
(Not to mention the jaw-dropping statements of Eleanor Clift in this one.)
AesopFan on May 19, 2013 at 11:40 PM
I enjoy popcorn and hope it is a long week.
Drill and Fill on May 20, 2013 at 12:41 AM
Hey give Barky a break. He had to get his sorry ass out to Vegas.
tbear44 on May 20, 2013 at 4:49 AM
Of course they sent Pfeiffer out to do the Sunday shows. He was the most senior expendable staff member they had . . .
BigAlSouth on May 20, 2013 at 5:39 AM
Pfeiffer… The guy with the red shirt in the landing party…
Boudica on May 20, 2013 at 5:53 AM
Perfect!
lea on May 20, 2013 at 7:11 AM
Does anybody else remember the campaign in 2008 when Obama defended his lack of administrative experience by saying he was just so smart and tuned in that his instincts were better than experience. Someone needs to dredge up these sound bites and play then with the current line about the government being too large to control and that the White House only knows what it reads in the newspaper.
bartbeast on May 20, 2013 at 8:43 AM
If where the president was during the Benghazi crisis is “irrelevant”, then he wasn’t where one would expect the Commander-in-Chief to be. So, where was he? Was he watching a movie in the residence? Was he bowling? Or was he having a bi-curious outing with his good buddy Reggie Love? If Obama was AWOL, as I suspect he was, it is he who is irrelevant. This entire stinkin’ criminal Obama Regime must go and now!
SpiderMike on May 20, 2013 at 9:31 AM
If this continues all week, it will be ‘O’ himself doing the rounds on the Sunday talk shows – except for Fox, of course. (‘O’ can do everything better than everyone else as he has been known to say.)
He then gets the extra benefit that no one will challenge him like they have begun to do with his minions.
Carnac on May 20, 2013 at 11:00 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2