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:

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

most excellent

cmsinaz on February 21, 2011 at 1:39 PM

Much will depend on the GOP’s ability to deliver on their promises in the House this year for fiscal discipline…

Well then… that’s pretty much the end of that!

sharrukin on February 21, 2011 at 1:40 PM

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.

does the post-census redistricting affect this at all?

ted c on February 21, 2011 at 1:40 PM

This is indeed very good news. One thing I’d add is thgat America’s population is also getting older on average. Older = wiser hence the trend is also more conservative in that sense.

Edouard on February 21, 2011 at 1:40 PM

When was the last time a Democrat won the WH without winning Wisconsin? Barone would know.

txmomof6 on February 21, 2011 at 1:42 PM

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.

Which is why I keep saying it’s lunacy for any of the drive-bys to attempt to portray Obama’s reelection as if it’s inevitable. If he does get reelected, it’ll be by a very slim margin. I don’t know if he’ll lose Pennsylvania. That state has teased us too many times in recent elections, although it did turn the tide in 2010. If he were to lose it, he can’t get reelected under any scenario. And Wisconsin could be slipping through his fingers as we speak.

Doughboy on February 21, 2011 at 1:43 PM

It will be a true victory when the MSM outlets also flip from Blue to Red, or at least purple. Once the MSM stops propping up the Democrats, the Red tide will wash the country clean.

Mallard T. Drake on February 21, 2011 at 1:44 PM

The Bamster and his historic supermajorities in the House and Senate has provided a moment of clarification for the American people. When one of the parties has absolute power, you find out their true nature, and it’s been an ugly experience for our country.

slickwillie2001 on February 21, 2011 at 1:44 PM

This would be better news if liberals weren’t like locusts, spreading and infesting in otherwise bountiful places. They move into an area and upset the balance just enough to screw things up.

Bishop on February 21, 2011 at 1:45 PM

Yup. He’s a uniter, all right. . .

dts-01 on February 21, 2011 at 1:45 PM

Get back to me when Illinois starts going red.

Knucklehead on February 21, 2011 at 1:45 PM

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

I got very little faith in Republicans. Way too few are conservative, and even fewer still are morally conservative, which means they only stand on the conservative line because it is politically expedient to do so. This is why I will not vote for any johnny come lately conservative for president. If you want my vote, you had better have sacrificed in your upholding of conservative values, not just thrown on new clothes and say your one of us.

astonerii on February 21, 2011 at 1:45 PM

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.

It would also help not to have a stiff like McCain at the top of the ticket.

Ward Cleaver on February 21, 2011 at 1:46 PM

This is why a government shut down is just about a sure thing. The Dems see it as a replay of 1995 when they maneuvered the MSM into blaming the Republicans for closing down the government. This time, no matter what the House of Representatives does, or does not do, they will be labeled extremist and they will be said to have caused the government lock down. Count on it.

Fred 2 on February 21, 2011 at 1:47 PM

Get back to me when Illinois starts going red.

Knucklehead on February 21, 2011 at 1:45 PM

Maybe after they go bankrupt. Maybe.

Ward Cleaver on February 21, 2011 at 1:48 PM

The Democratic State of Iowa just elected a Republican Governor and a Republican House, the State Senate has a Democratic majority…. by one. Times they are a changing.

IowaWoman on February 21, 2011 at 1:50 PM

I’m praying Calif will come around soon. Unfortunately, I have a better chance of dating Brooklyn Decker.

rjoco1 on February 21, 2011 at 1:50 PM

I guess this is good news, but I’m not sure how much stock to put in designations of states based on “affiliation.” I mean, Gallup has Texas, Oklahoma, and South Carolina as “competitive.” In what, football?

Athanasius on February 21, 2011 at 1:51 PM

2012 I would love to have both houses and the White House, not only for the country, but just to listen and watch the liberals whine and thrash about…

right2bright on February 21, 2011 at 1:52 PM

This would be better news if liberals weren’t like locusts, spreading and infesting in otherwise bountiful places. They move into an area and upset the balance just enough to screw things up.

Bishop on February 21, 2011 at 1:45 PM

That is a problem. They destroy a state with their leftist policies then when things go south they pack up and move to a properous state and do the same thing there.

darwin on February 21, 2011 at 1:57 PM

Michelle has opened registration on her site !

http://michellemalkin.com/2011/02/21/happy-presidents-day-comment-registration-is-open/

William Amos on February 21, 2011 at 2:00 PM

I can’t believe I’m the first to say this…

Count it!

/crr6

Oh, and to Proud RINO:

Good luck in 2012 biatch.

fossten on February 21, 2011 at 2:00 PM

Hmmm… Bush fatigue… maybe the GOP should consider running a few one-term presidencies on purpose, with the VP taking over after the first term.

Just for example:

Palin/Jindal 2012

Jindal/Christie 2016

Christie/Walker 2020

Avoids voter fatigue with the Numero Uno, and allows time to groom the VP to take over. No lame duck effect because the VP’s can carry over the party agenda from cycle to cycle.

Akzed on February 21, 2011 at 2:01 PM

Oil is trading above 105 p/bbl and we get Gallop polls.

darwin-t on February 21, 2011 at 2:03 PM

That is a problem. They destroy a state with their leftist policies then when things go south they pack up and move to a properous state and do the same thing there.

darwin on February 21, 2011 at 1:57 PM

Like those aliens in Independence Day – they move from planet to planet using up all the resources.

Good Lt on February 21, 2011 at 2:04 PM

How striking that there are large changes in Dhimmicrat affiliation, and minimal change in Republican affiliation. Dhimmicrats lost all their constituents to independence in affiliation.

Since Ed and Allah are supposed to be pundits for the Republicans now, one might think they would place more weight on the fact that Republicans have done nothing to harness the enthusiasm and determination of the Tea Party mentality, and wake up Republican politicians to the fact that they still are not listening to basic economic common sense.

We don’t care that Dhimmicrats are disloyal, lying, underhanded cheaters who will steal any election they enter. We care that Republicans are not opposing them vehemently because of some sort of PC “civility” code that says it is OK if the media and Dhimmis call us Hitlerites, terrorists, and racist, but it isn’t OK to call them cheaters, liars, and thugs for pushing citizens around in Wisconsin who go to Tea Party rallies, filling out illegal ballots and voter registration cards for Dhimmis, and loudly protest when we call them on their facts……

It is apparent that Republicans are almost as cowardly as Dhimmis are, supporting not the Truth, but the status quo.

So whom do we turn to in order to get our country back, then?

Well, not the editors of Hot Air.

Or Republican Leadership.

Or most Republican politicians. And no, Sarah can’t get it back for us either.

Only we, the People, who truly care about just and fair government, can do so. Don’t hold your breath waiting for pundits to help us. The battle has just been joined. The next 5-10 years will determine whether America still stands, or whether the United States of Soviet America take their place…..

You can pretend to not care…. until the police are at your door for eating something that wasn’t approved, smoking something illegal (which previously wasn’t illegal), or until you said something that wasn’t the talking point of the day. Tyranny grows in exactly the ways we are experiencing today. How do you think Middle Eastern dictatorships got their start?

Subsunk

Subsunk on February 21, 2011 at 2:06 PM

It would also help not to have a stiff like McCain at the top of the ticket.

Ward Cleaver on February 21, 2011 at 1:46 PM

amen

cmsinaz on February 21, 2011 at 2:07 PM

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.

Did Gallup do any analysis of North Carolina–another Dixie state that Obama won, where Sen. Richard Burr (R) won easily in 2010?

Steve Z on February 21, 2011 at 2:08 PM

We are acting as if it’s a given that Obama will be able to run again. It’s not a given that he’ll be able to get his name on the ballot in some states.

VBMax on February 21, 2011 at 2:09 PM

That’s if we’re still a country by then..with the cost of food and energy….we all may be living housing on closed military bases,freesing

red131 on February 21, 2011 at 2:10 PM

After seeing these numbers those in the GOP that would like to see us move back to Bushism are freaking crazy. Bushism caused the Obama surge. 2010 election narravtive was Reaganism. Unless we nominate a true Reaganite for POTUS thos e numbers will once again switch. No country club blueboolds. No bushites need apply. We Reaganites have the democrate party and the gop establishment on the run. the 2008 election results showed that the voters refudiated Bushism and 2010 reinforced that repudiation.

We need to look forward by looking back to Reagan and coolridge types of policies not hover/bush policies..

unseen on February 21, 2011 at 2:11 PM

Did Gallup do any analysis of North Carolina–another Dixie state that Obama won, where Sen. Richard Burr (R) won easily in 2010?

Steve Z on February 21, 2011 at 2:08 PM

not only that but the NC house and seante both flipped to the GOp for the first time since the civil W*r

unseen on February 21, 2011 at 2:12 PM

Nancy? Barry? Harry?

Why not stand up and take a bow. You’ve earned it.

GarandFan on February 21, 2011 at 2:13 PM

Wish it had been like this in ’08.

Dr. ZhivBlago on February 21, 2011 at 2:18 PM

Wish it had been like this in ’08.

Dr. ZhivBlago on February 21, 2011 at 2:18 PM

couldn’t be. bushism was still the rule of the day in the GOP

unseen on February 21, 2011 at 2:20 PM

….then there’s the tale of Harry Reid. Polls showed that he was trailing so much before the Nov. election, that he was supposed to have bitten the dust, for sure. As if by magic, he was re-elected. I’ve become very pessimistic.

betsyz on February 21, 2011 at 2:21 PM

This may be sliding the way we’d like, but I still don’t trust Gallop.

I can also see this as a way to make us put our guard down, and get lazy about the next elections, thinking we have a clear path. Then BOOM! Dems swoop in for the kill.

I’m feeling rather pessimistic today, eh?

capejasmine on February 21, 2011 at 2:25 PM

Barack Hussein Obama, Missouri, October 30, 2008

We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of & America. Destroying the Democratic Party.

Chip on February 21, 2011 at 2:27 PM

Alabama, Kansas, Montana, and South Dakota moved from a competitive designation to solidly or leaning Republican status.

HUH? Alabama, Kansas and S. Dakota were solid McCain states in 2008. Montana was close but still I don’t think anyone serioulsy thought Monatan would go for Obama.

Gallup has an odd definition of a competitive state.

angryed on February 21, 2011 at 2:31 PM

Which is why I keep saying it’s lunacy for any of the drive-bys to attempt to portray Obama’s reelection as if it’s inevitable. If he does get reelected, it’ll be by a very slim margin. I don’t know if he’ll lose Pennsylvania. That state has teased us too many times in recent elections, although it did turn the tide in 2010. If he were to lose it, he can’t get reelected under any scenario. And Wisconsin could be slipping through his fingers as we speak.

Doughboy on February 21, 2011 at 1:43 PM

You’re right that PA has frequently SEEMED winnable for Republicans, but has gone Democrat the last five Presidential elections. Even in 2010, a good year for Republicans, Pat Toomey only won his Senate seat by 2%.

The big problem in PA is Philly, with its huge population of knee-jerk liberals, as well as other Democrat strongholds in Pittsburgh and Erie. The rest of the state is rather conservative, but a Republican needs to win big in the Philly burbs and Susquehanna Valley (Scranton / Wilkes-Barre / Hazleton area) to have a chance in PA. Obama will probably have his New Black Panthers out in force in Philly scaring lil’ ol’ white ladies and Cracker-Babies away from the polls.

This is where Chris Christie could turn the tide, if he were to run. As Governor of New Jersey, he’s getting a lot of coverage in Philly media, which is watched by lots of people in southern New Jersey, but he could win a lot of voters in the Philly burbs to his side in a Presidential race. If Christie could flip both PA and NJ to his side, Obama would be toast.

Steve Z on February 21, 2011 at 2:33 PM

Steve Z on February 21, 2011 at 2:33 PM

bbbbbbbut he’s not 100% conservative on social issues so he would be worse than Obama.

angryed on February 21, 2011 at 2:35 PM

bbbbbbbut he’s not 100% conservative on social issues so he would be worse than Obama.

angryed on February 21, 2011 at 2:35 PM

The question is if he would be any different than Obama.

sharrukin on February 21, 2011 at 2:39 PM

angryed on February 21, 2011 at 2:35 PM

He’s pro-life, pro-traditional marriage and is trying to make the NJ supreme court more conservative. He’s iffy on guns, but if he runs, he’ll do a mea culpa on that.

IR-MN on February 21, 2011 at 2:39 PM

All your base are belong to us!

Christien on February 21, 2011 at 2:40 PM

After seeing these numbers those in the GOP that would like to see us move back to Bushism are freaking crazy. Bushism caused the Obama surge. 2010 election narravtive was Reaganism. Unless we nominate a true Reaganite for POTUS thos e numbers will once again switch.

Agreed that we shouldn’t run Bushites for POTUS, but Jeb Bush is still popular in FL and could probably beat Bill Nelson for the FL Senate seat. That’s where we need him most, but he needs to be talked out of running for Prez.

Steve Z on February 21, 2011 at 2:40 PM

Get back to me when Illinois starts going red.

Knucklehead on February 21, 2011 at 1:45 PM

I have something to say, but I’m afraid it unnecessarily and gratuitously presses the TOU envelope… too far.

ericdijon on February 21, 2011 at 2:42 PM

IR-MN on February 21, 2011 at 2:39 PM

You don’t have to convince me. But there are too many conservatives who don’t get that.

angryed on February 21, 2011 at 2:42 PM

bbbbbbbut he’s not 100% conservative on social issues so he would be worse than Obama.

angryed on February 21, 2011 at 2:35 PM

I didn’t realize that ‘any better than Obama’ was the new standard.

fossten on February 21, 2011 at 2:47 PM

trying to make the NJ supreme court more conservative.

IR-MN on February 21, 2011 at 2:39 PM

Now Christie has nominated Sohail Mohammed, Qatanan’s former lawyer, to a Superior Court judgeship. Sohail Mohammed is a board member of the American Muslim Union, an organization that has interlocking leadership with groups that have fundraised for Hamas and hosted a Hamas speaker.

Apparently he is trying to make the NJ supreme court very conservative. /

sharrukin on February 21, 2011 at 2:49 PM

Democrats think the entire electorate is as gullible as their core constituencies.

They run as moderates on bipartisanship, and against deficit spending. Once elected, they revert to their hyper-partisan socialist agenda and spend extravagantly. Now, they wonder why voters are angry – and really have no clue.

They really thought if only they forced Obamacare down our throats in 2009, by now we would already be hooked on a new entitlement and they would be well on the way to a New American Government – of the state, by the state, and for the state.

Guess again, Nancy.

~~~~~

When was the last time a Democrat won the WH without winning Wisconsin? Barone would know.

txmomof6 on February 21, 2011 at 1:42 PM

1916, Wilson’s reelection against Supreme Court Justice Charles Evans Hughes. Wilson barely managed to squeak an EC win by taking California by a couple thousand votes. Of course, his main campaign advantage was that “He kept us out of war” in Europe, which was folded up and put away immediately after his reelection.

Adjoran on February 21, 2011 at 2:54 PM

That is a problem. They destroy a state with their leftist policies then when things go south they pack up and move to a properous state and do the same thing there.

darwin on February 21, 2011 at 1:57 PM

What’s more, after the old-time Democrats screwed up their own Party by allowing the far Left to take over, now they’ve moved to the Republican Party and are screwing it up, too.

FloatingRock on February 21, 2011 at 2:55 PM

Don’t worry, Dems.

They made blue states more blue ===> CA, DE, etc. (where esle?)

Sir Napsalot on February 21, 2011 at 3:02 PM

I guess this is good news, but I’m not sure how much stock to put in designations of states based on “affiliation.” I mean, Gallup has Texas, Oklahoma, and South Carolina as “competitive.” In what, football?

Athanasius on February 21, 2011 at 1:51 PM

I don’t understand this about Oklahoma either. Every county in our state voted Republican in the presidential election, and for the first time in our state’s history, Republicans control both state houses and the governorship. So I don’t put much faith in Gallup on this.

silvernana on February 21, 2011 at 3:05 PM

wow!

in november 2012 we can repeal socialism in America and become free again!

reliapundit on February 21, 2011 at 3:10 PM

Also if you factor OUT the unintelligent youth vote of ’08 and the (vote for him because he is black) vote, there should be a big drop off of enthusiasm and turn out. The one killer to this coming tsunami is the spinelessness of some of the RINOs in Congress. They can change the momentum in some states because of their fecklessness and cowardice.

inspectorudy on February 21, 2011 at 3:15 PM

Oil is trading above 105 p/bbl and we get Gallop polls.

darwin-t on February 21, 2011 at 2:03 PM

Where?

West Texas Intermediate ~86, Brent ~103

Skandia Recluse on February 21, 2011 at 3:19 PM

Republicans barely lost in Washington in 2010m but may have enough momentum to seriously challenge Maria Cantwell for her open seat.

You can put that thought out of your head. We have 100% by-mail voting, with the ballots counted (or not, as desired) by county officials, and one deep-blue county that outnumbers the rest of the state. Every Republican will “barely lose” statewide forever here. Do what I do and send your campaign donations to states with a realistic chance of electing Republicans, like Massachussetts.

Fabozz on February 21, 2011 at 3:22 PM

Winning the Future (WTF)and Seizing the Future (STFU), one loss at a time.

Schadenfreude on February 21, 2011 at 3:29 PM

I say this because I’ve made a career out of counting votes, and the numbers tell a clear story; the demographics of America are changing in a way that is deadly for the Republican Party as it exists today. A GOP ice age is on the way.

… and now, 20 months later …

J_Crater on February 21, 2011 at 3:33 PM

Despite the figures, Gallup is still trying to spin for the Dems. If Texas is merely “competitive” and doesn’t even lean R, Gallup is wish-polling. (Dems haven’t won a statewide race in Texas in over 18 years!) Kentucky leans Dem?? NM is “Solid D” despite a GOP governor and voting purple for senate and President? And Alabama is the only Republican state in Dixie?

grgeil on February 21, 2011 at 4:04 PM

No way SC is “competitive”. The democrat party was decimated here last November.

SouthernGent on February 21, 2011 at 4:11 PM

Those numbers don’t look so bad. Any Republican will start at 180. IN and NC will not go Obama again so there’s 206. FL, OH, and VA are very unlikely to so there’s 266. Only 4 to go and many options (though none too easy given Obama’s margins, but as we saw last year even WI isn’t safe):
CO +9
IA +10
MN +10
NV +12
NH +10
PA +10
WI +14

Hopefully the Tea Party keeps it’s eye on the ball and doesn’t give Obama a second term by falling into a burn down the country to save it pique over cutting 0.8% of the budget or something.

jarodea on February 21, 2011 at 4:51 PM

Forgot NM +15, and just noticed how Obama’s ’08 margin is in the chart.

SouthernGent on February 21, 2011 at 4:11 PM

And to other similar comments, it’s just by party affiliation. Which normally doesn’t say much. The chart itself makes that clear:

WV Dem +19, Obama -13
OH Dem +18, Obama +5
NJ Dem +19, Obama +16

NV, NM, and WA are the only states on that list where Obama’s marging exceeds the margin the Dems hold and then only barely, just 1.3, 1.2, and 0.3 respectively.

jarodea on February 21, 2011 at 5:03 PM

Ed,

OH is represented by Sherrod Brown, not Sheldon Whitehouse. Whitehouse is from RI, a safely blue state.

crushliberalism on February 21, 2011 at 5:09 PM

These guys must be smoking dope in regards to Tennessee or am I misreading it? I have lived in Tenn most of my life and we have been shifting more conservative/GOP for last four election cycles. We are down to 2 districts that refuse to get rid of their corrupt Dems. We have 9 GOP House members, 2 RINO Senators (we will get rid of them next time around), a new GOP Governor and the we took control of both the State House and Senate.

So I don’t know how they have Tenn shifted from solidly or leaning Democratic to competitive.

Sporty1946 on February 21, 2011 at 7:42 PM

These guys must be smoking dope in regards to Tennessee or am I misreading it? I have lived in Tenn most of my life and we have been shifting more conservative/GOP for last four election cycles. We are down to 2 districts that refuse to get rid of their corrupt Dems. We have 9 GOP House members, 2 RINO Senators (we will get rid of them next time around), a new GOP Governor and the we took control of both the State House and Senate.

So I don’t know how they have Tenn shifted from solidly or leaning Democratic to competitive.

Sporty1946 on February 21, 2011 at 7:42 PM

I know how you feel. Texas is “competitive” in their chart? Seriously? When was the last time that a Democrat won Texas? LBJ, I think (and only because he was a Texan!).

All of the numbers are seriously gamed to make their chart look better for the Democrats than it should be. The main stream media is always painting the best picture possible for the Left so that, when they lose, it would appear to the casual observer that the election was “stolen”.

I am sick of the main-stream media’s bias and double-standards.

Texas is not “competitive” for the Democrats; it is solidly Republican, it has been solidly Republican since 1980 (at least) and it is only becoming more so.

Theophile on February 22, 2011 at 12:08 AM

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. …

This has to be wildly off.

Just look at where state governorships and legislature makeups ended up after the last election. NO WAY are there twice as many Democratic as Republican state electorates. If anything, it’s getting closer to the opposite way around by now.

logis on February 22, 2011 at 12:45 AM

Alabama, Kansas, Montana, and South Dakota moved from a competitive designation to solidly or leaning Republican status.

Ok, what the hell??? I was in Alabama in 2008, and many years before that. And I’ve been here since. When in recent memory was Alabama considered “competitive”? Our last 2 governors have been Rs, both our senators are Rs, I don’t think there is more than one rep that’s a D. This state is solidly red. Hell, we even have the teacher’s union collecting their own dues now!!!

runawayyyy on February 22, 2011 at 3:16 PM