A historical guide to the future of Conservatism: Part 7

A conclusion of my series; A historical guide to the future of Conservatism.

Previous Parts:

• Part 1: Popular Voting in Aggregate
• Part 2: Gender and Race
• Part 3: Age and Religion
• Part 4: Regional and Population Size
• Part 5: Eduction and Income
• Part 6: Voting Patterns and Party ID

Part 7: Conclusion and Summary

I began writing this series last month as means to analyze the recent history of elections, exit polls, and demographics to understand the future of Conservatism. After the defeat of 2008, it is important to reflect on the failures, look back, learn, and apply the lessons towards a new future. Conservatism will return to power, the question is how long it will take to get there, will it be a lasting return, what Principles and ideals will be held, and how will we get there.

Highlights of the Key Takeaways:

• Obama's popular vote margin of victory (6%) was less that George H.W. Bush (1988) and Bill Clinton (1992) but is the result of steady growth by Democrats since 1984.
• Conservatives need to hold the majority of Men and reverse the trend toward Democrats among women
• Conservatives cannot be a majority party with +90% of blacks voting Democrat, look for sub-segment of socially conservative Blacks to target
• Hispanics are the best opportunity to improve among minorities, they are a growing population with a volatile history towards both parties.
• Although a small percentage of voters, Asians are swing voters in key states.
• Restore the trend of growth among White Men and White Women that was interrupted in 2008.
• Improve and reverse the trend of 18-29 going Democrat, restore grassroots and get-out-the-vote advantages and build the future
• Recapture the 30-44 year old voters, win young families and convert aging Democratic youth
• Hold a majority among the +60 year olds, as baby boomers age they can be a consistent and reliable voter pool
• Build upon core constituencies of White Protestants, Born again Evangelicals, and those who attend service regularly
• Improve our numbers within the Jewish community by professing our solidarity with Israel and foreign policy Principles
• Win the battle for White Catholic votes, they are a bellwether. Carefully watch the changes of the U.S. Catholic Church and highlight "Life" issues to keep the Pro-Life voter.
• Reverse the declining numbers in urban areas, learn the lessons of Bush's impressive numbers in 2004
• Continue to grow in the 10K-50K population range and dominate the Rural vote more heavily
• Own the Suburban vote, it is key to victory across the board
• Look for in-roads back into the Northeast in congressional, state-level, and governorships, we cannot write-off New England
• Target key Midwestern states that have swung back and forth
• Hold the core south. Reverse trends in VA, NC, FL, and GA.
• Look West! Recapture the West. 2010 means new Electoral shifts to this area. Its growing in importance in EV numbers.
• Identify states that we have won recently but are trending Democrat and invest (MT, GA, etc.) (2000, 2004, and 2008)
• Identify states we've lost but are trending Republican (MN, PA, NJ, OH, etc.) (2000, 2004, and 2008)
• Learn from the macro-view of the regional shifts from the past. Don't just rely on strengths in states because that is all you'll be left with. Target new states to swing to the Blue! (1936 to 1956 , 1956 to 1964, 1964 to 1972, 1972 to 1988, 1988 to 1996, 1996 to 2004, and 2004 to 2008 )
• Reverse Democrat growth among the less educated, present working class policies that embrace the opportunity to advance.
• Reclaim a majority of those with some college or college grad, present intelligent ideas without intellectual snobbishness
• Stop the slide among those with Post-Grad degrees
• Interrupt Democrats impressive margins and growth among those making less than $30K
• Securing a majority among the majority of voters, those making between $30K - $75K
• Return to growth among those making more than $75K, make 2008 a fluke
• Win a significant margin of those who will feel Worse Today in 2012
• Minimize the margin of those who will feel Better Today in 2012
• Find a way to split those who will feel the Same Today in 2012.
• In these very polarized times, hold a large percentage of Conservatives and win a greater than 40% of Moderates.
• Reverse Obama's gains among those who previously voted Republican
• Capture 15-20% of those who previously voted Democrat
• Upgrade voter turnout efforts to narrow the gap to within 10% of the Democrats for First Time Voters

Through this analysis I have learned that although the numbers show only a slight difference in aggregate from 2004, the Conservative base has been eroding for some time. The 2008 election can be the match for Liberal dominance or the capstone of a long ascension to power. Conservatives have a choice. We can make this the peak as we start our new rise to power and their slow decline or we can ignore the signs and continue a disjointed assault while we continue to hold the minority in a Liberal Era.

It is gut check time for Conservatives. Now it the time to re-evaluate who we are, what we stand for, what we want to be, and who we allow to carry our banner. The Republican Party is a standard bearer of Conservatism, but it has strayed from the pasture. In 1992, the GOP learned this lesson and 2008 needs to serve as a reminder. This will take some time. We will fight for gains in 2010 and 2012. But, strategically we need to build a long-term majority rather than a dramatic short-lived ascension.

• Let us work to clearly define our Principles and march towards those.
• Let us rid ourselves of convenient victories that sacrifice the integrity of our Principles.
• Let us assuage the people with intelligent and practical ideas and realistic application of our Principles.
• Let us stand against the compromise, contradiction, or condemnation of our Principles.
• Let us challenge our adversaries and win the tactical battles of this long war.

The future is ours to shape.

Signing off...JCB

Sphere: Related Content

A historical guide to the future of Conservatism: Part 6

A continuation of my series; A historical guide to the future of Conservatism.

Previous Parts:

• Part 1: Popular Voting in Aggregate
• Part 2: Gender and Race
• Part 3: Age and Religion
• Part 4: Regional and Population Size
• Part 5: Eduction and Income

Part 6: Voting Patterns and Party ID
This part draws a comparison between political identification and party identification. Political Identification relates to your associations to "Conservative", "Liberal", "Moderate", or other definitions. Party Identification relates to your voting for a particular political party (i.e. Republican, Democrat, etc.). It is important to note the distinction.

I titled this series "A historical guide to the future of Conservatism", not Republicanism, not the Republican party. The Republican party is one vehicle with which to advance Conservative ideas and Principles. It is not the only vehicle, but certainly a critical path towards the realization of Conservative ideals in the recent past. There are of course other political parties, including segments of the Democratic party, that can and should be used to advance the cause. Outside of the political sphere, there exists many avenues that are often second-fiddle to many, but historically can claim a greater influence over the adoption and protection of Conservatism than the Republican party. For those asking what some of those might be, here is a short list: news media (yes they do exists), Internet (blogs like this), charitable organization, faith-based organization, the Chamber of Commerce, ARI, Cato, etc.

My point is that the Republican party is not our only path towards Conservative goals, but it is a vital to the execution of those goals. The U.S. is a 2 party political system. There are admirable independent parties, but other than in rare juxtapose elections, the field has been winnowed to 2 predominant players. Although they have changed in title, there will always be 2 competing parties representing the paradigms in our winner-take-all system. Those paradigms being the Liberal and Conservative ideologies. I don't foresee the death of either political vehicle (Republican & Democratic parties) in the near future so I urge the disheartened Conservative to not through the baby out with the bath water. If you are disgruntled with the Republican party as I am, take ownership of navigating it back towards the the true Conservative north. Don't sit idly by as the winds of change direct it aimlessly towards compromise. Conservatives are the navigators, the Captains the political figures, let us right the ship towards prominence. And through the unwilling Captains overboard!!

Before we get to the data, I want to point out that these categories follow the narrow linear view of the political spectrum based on Liberal & Conservative titles. It does not apply the secondary axis based on Authoritarianism and Libertarianism. For more on this and if you are interested to find our where you are on the Political Compass, go to http://www.politicalcompass.org/ and take their test. By international comparisons, the United States is "Centre-Right" politically. They have applied their questionnaire to historical figures and plotted them on the compass. Here are a couple of images of past leaders, current leaders, and US Presidential candidates in 2008.

By Political Identification:

These voters were broken down by their political identification:

• Moderate - 44%
• Conservative - 34%
• Liberal - 22%

Once again, the Moderate are the largest percentage in 2008 with 44% of voters not identifying themselves as Conservative or Liberal. Other than in 1980 and 1984, Democrats have won a larger percentage of the Moderate voters. Barack won Moderates by 21%, since 1976 only Clinton in 1996 won Moderates by a larger % with 24%. The Democrat numbers have been growing while the Republican numbers have been declining. Bush improved by 1% from 2000 to 2004, and then McCain dropped 6%. To my surprise, McCain, the Moderate champion, did worse with Moderates than Bush! Republicans obviously need to do better with Moderates to return the majority.

The voters who identified themselves as Liberal are 22% of the voting population. They overwhelmingly voted for Barack Obama at 90%. Looking at the graph it is easy to see the polarization of Liberal voters and their swing away from the center. Ford and Reagan won +25% of Liberal voters, compared to McCain's 10%. This trend like all is reversible. Remember that these definitions are not as clear-cut as they may appear.

Despite the perception that we are becoming a liberal country, 34% of voters identified themselves as Conservative. After Bush recorded the highest margins of Conservative votes for Republicans be receiving 81% in 2000 and 84% in 2004, McCain only received 78% in 2008. Another 6% drop, similar to his decline among Moderates. It is notable that McCain secured 78% of Conservatives, which is higher than Reagan in 1980, but in a year that 90% of Liberals and and 60% of Moderates voted Democrat, it was just not enough. This is the core constituency for Republicans, given the polarization that exists for the foreseeable future, they will need +75-+80% of these voters.

For those questioning whether the country has turned dramatically more liberal, here is proof that it has not. Conservative voters outnumber Liberals 34% to 22%, a 12% margin. Although, Democrats won Moderate voters by a 21% margins, when you include the splits among Liberals and Conservatives, Democrats hold a 6% edge. Not a dramatic shift considering Bush held the same margins in 2004. Again, we are inter-mixing party and political identification. Republicans need to focus on holding a large % of Conservatives in this polarized world and capture a larger % of Moderates.

By Party Identification:

These voters were broken down by their party identification based on previous votes:

• Previously voted Republican - 46%
• Previously voted Democrat - 37%
• First-time Voters - 11%

The voters that Previously voted Republican made up 46% of the voters and to no surprise, Obama won 17% of these voters. After Democrats won only 7% in 2000 and 9% in 2004, Obama doubled those numbers!! Clearly the disenchantment with Bush and tying McCain to Bush helped Obama. The voters that previously voted Republican that voted for Barack, made up 7.82% of the electorate, that is greater than his overall victory margin in the popular vote!! Republicans need to reverse this and get +90% of those who previously vote Republican to continue to vote that way.

Almost 10% less of the voting population Previously voted Democrat than Republican. Barack 89% of these voters, Kerry won 90% in 2004. Obama was able to hold these margins, which is significant. Republicans need to court and convert those who previously voted Democrat (similar to Reagan in 1980). Recent years they have sought to expand the base and voter turnout among existing constituents. Reagan's strategy of converting voters has the lasting impact on party dominance. Hopefully Obama hasn't began a similar swing of "Obama Republicans" that could affect Presidential elections for decades.

First-time Voters registered at 11% in 2008. Obama won 69% of these voters compared to McCain's 30%, that is a 39% margin!! Other than the converted Republicans, these first time voters are another reason that Barack won. Although 11% is not a dramatic increase from years past, the fact that Obama won such a large margin is. So there was not a dramatic surge of new voters in total, but rather a significant skew towards Obama. I credit his use of technology in making the his grassroots, get-out-the-vote machine more efficient.

Key Takeaways:

• In these very polarized times, hold a large percentage of conservatives and win a greater than 40% of Moderates.
• Reverse Obama's gains among those who previously voted Republican
• Capture 15-20% of those who previously voted Democrat
• Upgrade voter turnout efforts to narrow the gap to within 10% of the Democrats

coming soon... Part 7: Conclusion and Summary

Signing off...JCB

Source: http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/national-exit-polls.html Sphere: Related Content

A historical guide to the future of Conservatism: Part 5

A continuation of my series; A historical guide to the future of Conservatism.

Previous Parts:

• Part 1: Popular Voting in Aggregate
• Part 2: Gender and Race
• Part 3: Age and Religion
• Part 4: Regional and Population Size

Part 5: Eduction and Income

This 5th part of the series focuses on on Education level, income level, and perceived financial betterment as voting populations. Although not tit-for-tat, parallels can certainly be drawn between the level of education and ones' income. However, as the data shows, higher educated voters tend to vote Democrat whereas higher income voters tend to be Republican. The data for perceived financial situation (better today, the same, and worse today) is maybe the most unique data set that I have analyzed because there is not heredity to the social-psychic perceptions of ones' prominence. Whereas with Religion or location or even age, identifiable social and psychological patterns can be formed by history. People tend to vote like their parents, when they become parents. Generations' voting habits are formed by events that they experienced together (Great Depression, 1960s Civil Rights movement, the peaceful prosperous 1990s, 9/11, etc.). But, perceived financial improvement crosses all demographics. A wealthy person might answer the question that they are worse today with market damage to their financial security. Meanwhile a poorer person may have gotten a promotion or bought a cheap house and consider themselves better today. Its a situational demographic that along with "job approval of the current administration" polls and "country in the right direction" polls forms an almost insurmountable trifecta of predication to Presidential election outcome

Education:

Starting with Education, the data is broken into achievement levels and their percentages for each:

• Not a High School Graduate - 4%
• High School Graduate - 20%
• Some College - 31%
• College Graduate - 28%
• Post-Graduate Degree - 17%

While only 4% of the voting population, those who are Not a High School Graduate have gone Democrat by +5% in every election since 1980 with the exception of 1984 and 2004 ironically. This is another demographic that Obama swung hard back towards the Democrats from gains in 2004 winning by 28%.

Having gone for the winner in every election since 1980, the High School Graduate has eerily matched victory margins. While not by substantial margins, Democrats have been growing and Republican shrinking among voters in this demographic. These voters are some recent High School grads who may not have started college, but more likely are the working class, blue-collar, tradesmen of this country. Likely concerned with industry success, small-business success, and pocketbook issues.

The voters with Some College have also gone for the victor in every election since 1980. At 31% of the voting population, Democrats have consistently been growing in percentage in this demographic going from 35% in 1980 to 51% in 2008 (a 16% growth). Republican took a clear hit in 1992 and have not been able to recover. Liberal ideas dominate most college/university campuses, so it is not a surprise that Democrats have been growing here. However, to compete Republicans need to organize around college groups to pull in the young able bodied volunteers and voters who form the back bone of grassroots politics.

Republicans have won the College Graduate votes until this year when Barack won it by 2%. With 28% of the voting electorate, this obviously an important group to build upon. Republicans need to return to holding and building its constituency around this group.

Democrats have averaged 10% victories among those with a Post-Graduate Degree. Obama won this group by 18% in 2008. Democrats are growing among this demographic and their numbers continue to increase, 17% of the electorate reported having a post-grad degree, an all time high.

Income:

The Income data is broken into achievement levels and their percentages for each:

• Less than $15K/year - 6%
• $15K to $30K/year - 12%
• $30K to $50K/year - 19%
• $50K to $75K/year - 21%
• $75K to $100K/year - 15%
• Greater than $100K/year - 26%
• Greater than $200K/year - 6%

Income levels create the same bell-curve as education levels in terms of voter populations. Those earning Less than $15K/year are 6% of the voting population in 2008 and have gone Democrat overwhelmingly. Barack won these voters by 48%! Democrat margins have been growing. Because it is a "less than" qualifier, this likely includes those with no earned income. It is overly simplistic to attribute this voting pattern to economic principles, but as it relates to income this group favors the more Liberal ideals of taxation and redistribution.

Those making $15K to $30K/year also have favored Democrats overwhelmingly. Their numbers have grown to their largest margins of 23% for Barack! Being general laborers, young professionals, recent college grads, etc. it is a population that Republicans need to do better with to build a future.

The voters making $30K to $50K/year (19%) and $50K to $75K/year (21%) form the nucleus of the country. They are the highest in percentages of the population and they straddle the current median household income ($50,233.00 in 2007). They have typically been closely split between Democrat and Republican, with 2 exceptions. Bush won the $50-75K vote by 13% in 2004 and Obama won the $30-$50K by 12% in 2008. Bush had neutralized Democrat gains in the $30-50K group but McCain failed to retain that hold. Conversely, Republican have been steadily adding 5% in the $50-75K group from '92 to '04 until Obama reversed that to come within 1% of McCain. Ranging from $30K to $75K is a broad group but these are the working "Middle Class" voters that make up 40% of the voting population. A variety of other issues will affect their votes but one thing is certain, they don't want to pay any higher taxes!

The voters making $75K to $100K/year have gone Republican in every election since 1996 until this year. Obama won this group by the narrow margin of 3%, but it speaks volumes about the lack of impact that McCain's economic proposals had upon these voters. Being the senior contributors, middle aged younger management, or small business owners, these voters vary.

An impressive 26% of voters make Greater than $100K/year and of those 6% make Greater than $200K/year. So contrary to Democratic rhetoric, a quarter of the voters in this country are making more than $100 grand. Since 1996 those making more than $100K have gone Republican, until 2008 when McCain & Obama split these voters at 49%. Another indication of McCain's failed economic message/platform. There is only data from 2004 & 20008, but Obama reverse a 28% Bush advantage in '04 among those making greater than $200K to win the group by 6%. Amazing given the impending tax increases for these voters presented by Obama during the campaign.

Financial Situation:

The responses for Financial Situation are broken into whether someone feels "better today", "worse today", or "the same today" against an undefined yesterday.

• Better Today - 24%
• Same Today - 34%
• Worse Today - 42%

This was one of the more interesting breakdowns because of its historical predictability regarding the outcome, as I described above. Remember that the undefined past in the question makes this response difficult to dissect and attribute to specific events. Rather, it is a gut reaction as to how people feel about "things" today.

With the financial crisis exploding in the middle of the campaign season, I'm surprised that only 42% responded that they are Worse Today. When you look at all three of the graphs together you can see that Democrats felt better after Clinton years and Republican after Bush years. It is interesting that Independents have been heavier in the worse today response regardless of the President, likely due to their cynical attitude towards the 2 parties.

Looking at the past elections, if you think of the Better Today voter casting their ballot out of affection and the Worse Today voter out of distaste, and the Same Today as somewhere in between it gets interesting.

1992: After 12 years of Republican rule, Bush's 37% margin among Better Today voters could not withstand Clinton's 47% margin among Worse Today voters. With Same Today voters split, the independents made the difference. Independents were 14% in the Better Today and Democrats at 24%. However Independents were 25% to the Republicans 14% in Worse Today. It was this 10% that probably had the biggest impact on Bush's loss.

1996: Clinton won the Better Today voters by 40% and Dole won Worse Today voters by 30%, Same Today voters were split. Enough said.

2000: Gore won the Better Today voters by 25% and Bush won the Worse Today voters by 30%. However, Bush split the tightly coupled Same Today voters to win by 25%. By targeting those who were content with the benefits they saw during the Clinton years, but dissatisfied with his conduct in office and social liberalism of the late '90s, he was able to upset Gore.

2004: Bush won the Better Today voters by an astounding 61% and Kerry won the Worse Today by 59%. Unlike 2000, Bush lost the Same Today crowd by 1%, but held on with the larger number of people who felt Better Today.

2008: McCain won the Better Today voters by 23% (less than half the margin of Bush in 2004) and Obama won the Worse Today by 43%. Obama also won the Same Today by 8%.

When applying the % of the vote for each group, Obama's 54% breaks down into 9% Better Today, 15% Same Today, and 30% Worse Today. Meaning 1/3 of the country felt they were Worse Today and voted for Obama, staggering! McCain's 44% breaks down into 13% Better Today, 19% Same Today, and 12% Worse Today. Clearly Obama capitalized on the voters who felt Worse Today and minimized McCain's numbers among those who felt Better Today to win.

Republicans, now being the opposition party, need to convince voters in 2012 that they are Worse Today and to vote for the Republican candidate. They do this by highlighting Obama's failures and their financial impact. We'll see how this recession plays out but it seems like the tools are already in motion and economists predict we will be coming out of this in late 2010 or 2011, just in time of Obama to claim credit!! Conversely, Republican need to minimize Obama's margin among those who will feel Better Today. If we are coming out of the Recession, this will be difficult but not impossible.

Key Takeaways:

• Reverse Democrat growth among the less educated
• Reclaim a majority of those with some college or college grad
• Stop the slide among those with Post-Grad degrees
• Interrupt Democrats impressive margins and growth among those making less than $30K
• Securing a majority among the majority of voters, those making between $30 - $75K
• Return to growth among those making more than $75K, make 2008 a fluke
• Win a significant margin of those who will feel Worse Today in 2012
• Minimize the margin of those who will feel Better Today in 2012
• Find a way to split those who will feel the Same Today in 2012.

coming soon... Part 6: Voting Patterns and Party ID

Signing off...JCB

Source: http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/national-exit-polls.html

Sphere: Related Content

A historical guide to the future of Conservatism: Part 4

A continuation of my series; A historical guide to the future of Conservatism.

Previous posts:
Part 1: Popular Voting in Aggregate
Part 2: Gender and Race
Part 3: Age and Religion

Part 4: Regional and Population Size
In this part of the series I'll analyze and present the data by Region and Population size. I've also pulled additional data to add to the exit poll data which will show map-based views of trends for the regions and population sizes.

Population Size:
I'll start with Population size. The data is broken down by the following groupings and their % of the electorate:

• Greater than 500K = 11%
• 50K to 500K = 19%
• 10K to 50K = 7%
• Suburbs = 49%
• Rural = 14%

There are some interesting shifts in the trending. Although only 11% of the population, the voters in the Greater than 500K are no doubt easily targeted with the media stations and mass gathering opportunities. Its interesting how Bush in 2004 closed the gap by 10%, which was reversed in 2008. Democrats have a clear advantage and history with urban voters. Republicans need to reverse the downward trend among these voters.

Since 1988, Democrats have won the voters in the 50K to 500K range by 10-15%. The one exception again is Bush in 2004 closing the gap to a tie at 49%. Barack reversed that in 2008 and won it by 20%! That is a huge swing. Again, there is another downward trend in this range that needs to be reversed.

Conversely, looking at the voters in the 10K to 50K range, it was Bush who dropped 10% here in 2004 from 2000. McCain was only able to expand the Republicans share from 50% to 53%. Definitely not enough to make up for the drop in the 50-500K range. Republican numbers have actually been climbing in this range but at only 7% it is a diamond in the rough.

The Rural voters have gone Republican in every year since 1988, with the data we have. We edged Clinton in 1992 and 1996 by 1 & 2 percentage points. This likely due to his gains in Appalachia and the Mississippi valley in those years. Bush won this range by 18% and 20%, whereas McCain only won it by 8%. Clearly he was unable to capitalize on the "Bitter so they cling to guns & religion" gaffe by Obama.

With the Suburbs voter totalling 49% in 2008, this is obviously a pivotal group. Looking at the plotlines, ever victor since 1980 has won a larger % of the suburban vote. Suburban migration from the more liberal inner cities can attribute for some of the losses as we've declined from 55% in 1980 to 48%. But look at the swing from 1988 to 1992. Clinton clearly shifted the suburban electorate. His gains, or Bush's losses in 1992, among Independents is an identifiable swing. Bush recovered in 2000 and 2004 with 2% and 5% margins respectively. His gains in key suburbs of Cincinnati, Tampa, and St. Louis were big reasons why he won those toss up states. McCain's drop-off in key suburbs is part of the reason why he lost OH, FL, VA, NC, and IN. Clearly this is a key voting block for Republican success.

Looking at a Map of how the counties have changed since 1960 reiterates the data.

Regions:
The Regions were broken down into the following 4 areas with their % of the electorate:

• Northeast = 21%
• Midwest = 24%
• South = 32%
• West = 23%

Once the most populous area, the Northeast has been continuing to shrink in population and at the same time become more Democratic. There is a clear drop-off of Republican preference since the Clinton years. The Northeast is a core region for the Democrats. Not only at a Presidential level, but in Congress as well. When Congress resumes in 2009, there will not be a single Republican House member from New England. Neither party can ignore an entire region of the country and be successful. Republican need to invest in favorable parts of the Northeast for House Seats, Governorships, and eventually Electoral Votes. Places like New Hampshire with its strong Libertarian beliefs plays nicely with Conservative economic principles, true principles not the practices of the recent years. Maine has been trending more Republican in past years with a more rural population. Western New York is more conservative as is Western Pennsylvania. A surprise is that New Jersey has also been trending more Republican. The question for Presidential elections is whether that manifests itself into Electoral Votes.

The Midwest is a broad and diverse region and always in contention. With aging Manufacturing in the east, farming plains in the west, and heavy population center in the middle, there are sub-regions within the Midwest that cannot be accounted for in aggregate. The victors in ever election since 1972 has won this region by popular vote. Clinton's Mississippi River and Appalachian strategies in the Midwest were keys to his victories. Obama capitalized on the heavy union voters, collapsing manufacturing, and his home turf in Chicago to turn a 10% margin of victory, the largest since Reagan in 1984. Ohio and Missouri are probably the the 2 most hotly contested states in recent elections. Both are clearly transitioning economies. Republicans need to regain the losses in OH, MO, IN, IA, WI, and MN. They also need to look for House seats in key conservative areas such as the Bible belt in southern IL and IN, central MN, northern MI, and across OH.

Since the FDR years, the South has been turning away from the Democratic party. It wasn't until Nixon, that it was solidified as core Republican country. Other than Carter in '76, Republicans have won a larger percentage of the southern vote in every election. Clinton obviously made a large dent along the Mississippi valley in AR, LA, and TN. Ironically, these same 3 states have trended more Republican in 2008 than any other in the nation. Republicans are losing their grip on the South as a whole as the demographics change in VA, NC, GA, and FL. Florida has long been a wild-card. Dominated at the state level by Republicans, in Federal elections the Democratic Jewish and minority voters come out. Georgia has been trending more Republican until 2008, when Barack reversed this trend with very high Black voter turnout in the Atlanta area. It was shocking to see Virginia and North Carolina go Democrat in 2008, but it shouldn't have been!! The Washington D.C. suburbs, possibly the most liberal per capita, continues to expand into east VA and finally out-numbered the western Appalachian and southern military voters. North Carolina is a matter of immigration also. The boom of the Research Triangle (Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill) has brought in many more-liberal oriented northerners. Add in the fact that this growth is happening on top of three major universities (UNC, NC State, and Duke) and you have a recipe for disaster for Republicans. Republican obviously need to hold onto core deep south states and reverse the trends towards Democrats GA, VA, and NC.

If the Midwest has been the battleground region of the past, the West is the future. An odd mix of the mountains, the coasts, and the deserts; it is the "new frontier" by Democrats. Bush established a firm hold of the mountain region in 2000 and 2004. However, pockets of Democrats have sprung up that are challenging the norm. We saw Colorado go this year. Did you know that McCain won Montana by only 2.5%? With 2 sitting Senators, Montana may be the next Democrat swing. Its amazing to think that George H.W. Bush won CA, and Reagan swept the PacNW by +10%. The often referred to "Left Coast" is clearly along with New England the base of the Democrat party. The southwest is where we may see big changes. The 3 fastest growing states in the U.S. are NV, AZ, and NM. Don't assume it is all Hispanic voters either. However, there is a heavy concentration of Hispanics in this area and as I discussed in Part 2, they are a make or break demographic for Republicans in the future. Republicans need to focus on changing their game in the desert areas, look for opportunities in the coastal regions, and hold majorities in the mountains. While it would be difficult to turn a state like CA in presidential elections, near-term, there are House and Governorship opportunities. The key is to stop or reverse the trend towards Democrats in the West.

Historical Map Trends:

Here are the trends by state for 2000, 2004, and 2008. Its interesting to see a state like Ohio which went Republican in 2004, has trended more Republican since, but went for Barack because of higher turnout in 2008.

From 1936 to 1956 you can see the Republican party grow from a New England base to a dominant party except in the south.

From 1956 to 1964 you can see the Democratic party grow from a southern party, expand in the Mid-Atlantic and Midwest, and ultimately reverse map of 1956. Fascinating!

From 1964 to 1972 you can see the southern backlash against Democrats, a Balkanized party holding on to the mid-Atlantic and islands of support, to a Nixon supermajority opposed to attempted move to the left by the Democrats.

From 1972 to 1988 you can see a brief resurgence among Democrats in the south and Appalachia for Carter but otherwise a period of Republican electoral dominance. 1988 concludes with Democrats holding only the seeds of their new base, PacNW, Upper Midwest, and New England.

From 1988 to 1996 you can see the true impact of Clinton finally uniting the Democratic party. Turning the seeds of the West coast, upper Midwest, and New England into corner posts for expansions in Appalachia, the Mississippi River Valley, and signs of the future in the West.

From 1996 to 2004 you can see the Democrats being driven back to their corners. Republicans capturing the West solidly, reclaiming the entire South, Appalachia and eastern Midwest.

The effects and shifts from 2004 to 2008 are unclear. We don't know if Republicans will be a deep south, mountain west, plains of the Midwest party. We don't know if gains in the northern south are permanent shifts. We don't know if Democrats will own the eastern Midwest long term. We don't know if Republicans can reverse the Western loses. What we do know is that our Electoral Strategy is going to have to change to avoid regionalized pigeon-holing brought on by exclusionary approaches to our positions.

Key Takeaways:

• Reverse the declining numbers in urban areas
• Avoid heavy swings among population groups
• Continue to grow in the 10K-50K population range
• Dominate the Rural vote more heavily
• Own the Suburban vote, it is key to victory across the board
• Look for in-roads back in the Northeast, we cannot write-off New England
• Target key Midwestern states in flux
• Hold the core south. Reverse trends in VA, NC, FL, and GA.
• Look West! Recapture the West. 2010 means new Electoral shifts to this area. Its growing in importance in EV numbers.
• Identify states that we have won recently but are trending Democrat and invest (MT, GA, etc.)
• Identify states we've lost but are trending Republican (MN, PA, NJ, OH, etc.)
• Learn from the macro-view of the regional shifts from the past. Don't just rely on strengths in states because that is all you'll be left with.

coming soon... Part 5: Education and Income

Signing off...JCB

Source: http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/national-exit-polls.html, Dave Leip

Sphere: Related Content

A historical guide to the future of Conservatism: Part 3

A continuation of my series; A historical guide to the future of Conservatism.

Previous posts:
Part 1: Popular Voting in Aggregate
Part 2: Gender and Race

Part 3: Age and Religion
In this segment we will analyze the breakdowns by Age, a composite of Whites by Age, and Religion.

Breakdown by Age:
According to the 2008 numbers, the age groups made up the following portions of the electorate:

• 18 - 29 year olds = 18%
• 30 - 44 year olds = 29%
• 45 - 59 year olds = 30%
• +60 year olds = 23%

When we look at the 18 - 29 year olds, there is a declining number of Republican voters in this age group. Reagan captured 59% in his landslide in 1984, but Obama trumped that with 66% this year! Likely many are new voters, there was a staggering 34% gap between Obama and McCain in 2008. Republican grass-roots get out the vote efforts were clearly outgunned this year. We need to re-tool and learn from the creative ways the Obama campaign courted younger voters. Issues that concern this age group include: long-term viability of Social Security, Climate control, access to Higher Education, and Jobs as they enter the workforce and begin careers.

Among the 30 - 44 year old, fewer voted Republican than Democrat for the first time since 1996. Seeing a 5% decline from 2004 for Republicans is clearly troubling. This group is typified by young families and middle-aged workers; both core constituencies of Republicans. These voters went for Clinton by a 19% margin in 1996 in the 18-29 year old group. Issues that concern this age group include: Early Education for their kids, costs of Higher Education, Economic stability, Job security, National Security, and Social issues.

Since 1992, 45 - 59 year olds have had the closest margin of error. Some are the tale-end of the "Baby Boomer" generation, they are older workers with adult children and probably concerned about their retirement. These are the same voters who favored Reagan at 59% in the 18-29 year old group in 1984.

Despite a decline of 3% from 2004, it is positive that Republicans held a majority of the +60 year olds. As a voting population they turnout more consistently and sway from pre-election polling less than the other age groups.

Breakdown by Age/Race :
The data for the same for age groups by White voters only shows:

• 18 - 29 year old Whites = 11% (-7%)
• 30 - 44 year old Whites = 20% (-9%)
• 45 - 59 year old Whites = 23% (-7%)
• +60 year old Whites = 19% (-4%)

When the graphs are viewed side by side by Age group vs. White only by Age Group, it reiterates the analysis I conducted in Part 2. The trend lines are similar only down more for Republicans when minorities are added and more inclined for Democrats. It is interesting the differential numbers for the age groups. In the +60 year olds, on 4% are non-White whereas 9% of 30-44 year olds are. Obviously our efforts to court more minority voters needs to be focused on the younger age groups. Not only because of their percentages but also for longevity.

Breakdown by Religions:

The proportional representation by Religion:

• White Protestant = 42%
• White Catholic = 19%
• Jewish = 2%
• Born-again or Evangelical Christian = 38%
• Attend Religious Services weekly = 40%

Republicans have dominated the White Protestant vote having only dropped below 50% once since 1972, that was in 1992. McCain was down only 2% points from the 2004 share so he held this group. Going forward this is obviously a core constituency of the Republican party that has to be held.

The White Catholic votes, while only half that of White Protestants, is a bellwether. Since 1972, and before, as the Catholics have gone so has the election. 2008 was the exception, with McCain getting 52% to Barack's 47%. They have been and will continue to be a difficult population to stereotype. Their predominance in the Mid-Atlantic, Northeast, and Southwest crosses some important recent battleground states. I believe that there is a growing rift in the Catholic church between those who regularly attend masses and accept Papal doctrine and those who attend less frequently and reject Papal authority or influence on their decisions. As the graph of those who Attend Religious Services weekly shows, the former group tends to be more Conservative while the latter is more Liberal. Not to over-emphasize the obvious but the frequent attendees are more Socially Conservative. In the Catholic faith these voters are more likely to vote on the "Life" issues first, taking a cue from Vatican doctrines. Republicans have toed the line on capital punishment but have benefited from their ardent support for Life in regards to abortion and stem cell research.

The Jewish vote, while only 2% of the electorate, has moved strongly to the Left. It is an important group of voters in contested states like Florida, with a high concentration of Jewish voters. Our stance towards the defense of Israel is the most important means in which to influence this group.

The Born-again or Evangelical Christian voter have gone Republican by no less than 16% in every election since 1972. The data is not available for 1996 and 2000, but it can be assumed that these voters also favored Republicans in those years. This is obviously another core constituency of the Republican party and offers another example of the need to focus on principles in the future rather than run away from them. A concerning point is that McCain got 8% less than Bush in 2004.

I mentioned earlier that those who Attend Religious Services weekly make up 40% of the electorate and favor Republicans be +50%. McCain lost about 5% of this vote from 2004, some of that being the cross-section of born-again Evangelicals. The practice of Religion has had its ups and down in the past few decades in the U.S. In the late 90s, regular church attendance and association with a specific religion were at all time lows. There was a resurgence in the past decade. Aided by the focus on social and value issues, Bush dominated these voting blocks in 2000 and 2004. Some attribute his margins of victory to these voters specifically. The challenge going forward will be to hold to our principles while applying ingenuity to new ideas to capture the voters who were absent in 2008.

Key Takeaways:

• Improve and reverse the trend of 18-29 going Democrat
• Recapture the 30-44 year old voters
• Hold a majority among the +60 year olds
• Build upon core constituencies of White Protestants, Born again Evangelicals, and those who attend service regularly
• Improve our numbers within the Jewish community
• Win the battle for White Catholic votes. Carefully watch the changes of the U.S. Catholic Church and highlight "Life" issues to keep the Pro-Life voter.

coming soon... Part 4: Regional and Population Size

Signing off...JCB

Source: http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/national-exit-polls.html Sphere: Related Content

Iraq: The Ending in sight and historical interpretations

To be clear; the War in Iraq ended successfully on April 9, 2003 with the successful toppling of Saddam Hussein and his reign of terror. President Bush's was not in error when declaring Mission Accomplished that May. We successfully defeated the enemy of the day. The error was inadequately planning for reconstruction.

It has been stabilizing the peace and rebuilding of the new Iraqi Government that existed since 2003 and continues today. With the elimination of Saddam's control, the vacuum of power was quickly consumed by an Al Qaeda insurgency, Iranian and Syrian financing, and regional warlords. The Coalition Forces were vastly undersized for this mission. Stretched thin, the reconstruction hit a low-point in 2006. This all changed with "The Surge" of 20K addition Soldiers and extensions of 4K Marines.

It appears that the Iraqi government has approved a security pact with the U.S. that would extend a troop presence until 2012. To add historical perspective, the U.S. was involved in the rebuilding of Japan from 1945 to 1952 when the Treaty of San Fransisco was signed (7 years). We were largely involved in the rebuilding of Germany from 1945 to 1955 when Western Germany joined NATO (10 years).

Iraq has not failed. The war was won victoriously in a matter of weeks. The rebuilding has been challenging and costly but appears to be ending successfully. Mistakes were made, but they were corrected. The long-term benefits are yet to be measured, but a stabilized Iraq is a near-term victory for the Global War on Terrorism.

For all of those who voted for a Democrat or Republican because of their pledge to "end the war in Iraq", you've been played. They didn't have the guts to end a war in defeat because they knew that the American people would not accept that (regardless of what MSM polls have said). Ask Cindy Sheehan what she thinks of political promises broken (i.e. Nancy Pelosi). We are on the path toward successful completion of the follow-on mission of rebuilding Iraq. We have President Bush to thank for his determination and honor when tough choices had to be made.

Barack Obama and the Democrats will try to claim victory in ending the War in Iraq. But today's announcement, if approved by the Iraqi government, have set in place the end. They are not the orchestrator of this victory but only the beneficiaries of others' efforts. Like Clinton's claimed responsibility for the economy of the 90s, Presidents inherit the results of the actions of their predecessors (good and bad). It is up to us to ensure that history is recorded accurately.

Signing off...JCB Sphere: Related Content

A historical guide to the future of Conservatism: Part 2

A continuation of my series; A historical guide to the future of Conservatism. See Part 1: Popular Voting in Aggregate for the framework of the series.

Part 2: Gender and Race
As the analysis of the popular vote trends in aggregate showed, Democrats have been building a majority since 1984. Republicans and Conservatives need to increase market share by building a bigger constituency base. Part 2 starts the analysis of the different demographic segments to see where we are strong/weak and where are the opportunities.

Starting with Gender:
According to the 2008 numbers, Women make up 53% of the electorate and Men 47%. On Average (since 1972) Men have been more Republican and Women slightly more Democrat. Men also tended to vote more Independent over the years than Women.

As the graph for Men shows, the years that Democrats have successfully won the White House they got a larger percentage of the male vote, or close to it in 1996.

As the graph for Women shows, the percentage of Women who vote Democrat has steadily been increasing.

So Republicans need to hold the majority of men and work to reverse the trend of women voting Democrat. Having a stronger presence of women in the Republican party is a start. But winning on the domestic social issues is the key to changing female voting patterns. This is still too much of a macro-view of the data to define a prescription.

Next up is Race
In 2008, Whites comprised 74% of electorate, Blacks 13%, Hispanics 9%, and Asians 2%.

As the graphs show, Republicans have won a larger percentage of White votes in every election since 1972. While Democrats have won a larger percentage of Blacks since '72, Hispanics since '80, and Asians since 2000. The Hispanic and Asian datapoints don't go back to '72 but it is clear that Democrats are not only winning the minorities but building upon them.

With 74% of the voting population being White, it's difficult to dissect. One interesting note is the very similar trend lines between the White and Men populations and their voting patterns.

Blacks have shown a solidarity to the Democratic party since before 1972, largely due to the Civil Rights movement and Lyndon Johnson. Its amazing to think that Eisenhower got 39% and Nixon 32% of the Black vote in 1956 and 1960 respectively. Nixon got 18% in 1972, and its been downhill since. With the election of Barack Obama as the first partially-Black President, this will be a difficult demographic to change in the short-term. The potential exists within the Southern Black populations which tend to be more religious and socially conservative then their Northern neighbors.

Republicans have never received more that 50% of the Hispanics vote. Progress was being made from 1996 to 2004 but drastically changed in 2008 with Republicans getting just over 30%. Hispanics are the fastest growing population in the country. There are various projections that they will be the largest minority in the next 5-15 years. This is clearly an opportunity for Republicans and one that we can't afford not to address. We will look more in depth at the Regional data but, it was clear that the Democratic strategy this year was focused on turning the West their way. See Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado. All four had booming Hispanic populations that they were able to capitalize on to win those closely contested states. But there is hope (see CA Prop 8). Hispanics are predominantly Catholic, and traditional Catholics at that. We may align with these voters on social issues but in the Western states the main issue is immigration. With Western Hispanics being primarily of Mexican decent, our positions on immigration are sensitive. The key is finding the right balance between security and amnesty. We want to secure the border, those voting Hispanics probably want some due course as well for future immigrants. However, they don't want us to raid and ship away any and all who didn't follow the process. We need to be able to sell the idea that we want to secure the border, make entry and immigration to this country available to those who want to legally cross, and systematically integrate those who are here illegally now in a just and reasonable way. The other key Hispanic group are the Cuban-Americans in Florida. It appears that Russia is restoring Western Hemispheric influence in Venezuela and Cuba. I think that immigration reform along these lines, along with social and foreign relations issues, could change the perception of Republicans among Hispanics and help build a strong future with this growing population.

While only 2% of the voting population were Asians in 2008, there is a clear trend towards the Democrats. President Bush's strong Asian focus and relationships with Japan, Korea, and China helped plateau the decline. But, this year it slipped into the 30% range for the first time for Republicans. The largest concentrations of Asians are in the Pacific coastal states, which have been Democrat strongholds in recent years. There are also growing Asian populations in Minneapolis (largely Hmong and South Asian) and the NC Research Triangle. Both states and regions are growing and will be more and more important to future victories for both parties. Republicans will need to promote free trade and greater involvement in ASEAN.

Composite of Gender and Race
The data sets have been broken into the following 4 composites: Black Men, Black Women, White Men, and White Women.

As discussed earlier, Blacks have an association with Democrats that is stronger than any other demographic group. No other demographic group has consistently supported one party or the other at such overwhelming percentages. I reviewed above some of the ways to reverse this trend. They will be difficult but necessary. By comparison, Black Men tended to be more open to voting Republican or Independent that Black Women. Republicans cannot write-off the Black voters of this country and expect to be successful.

In aggregate, examining the White voting population (74%) is futile. Breaking it down be gender gives a better indication of what's happening.

When comparing the graph of Women and White Women voters, the lines follow similar patterns. However, Republicans have done much better with White Women as a subset than with Women in total. The trend of White Women has been going up for Republicans and is more flat with Democrats compared to Women in aggregate. The graph clearly shows a stumble in 2008 on the growing support from White Women for Republicans. I would attribute this to the lack of focus in the 2008 campaign on domestic issues and McCain allowing Obama to blur the lines on "values" and not forcing him to take a stance on the issues. Until we can rebuild our credibility with minorities, we need to stop the hemorrhaging we saw this year among White Women.

Similar to the comparison above, the trend lines among Men and White Men are almost identical with a larger separation among White Men. One difference from Women is that Democrats have made recent gains among White Men whereas they are more flat with White Women. White Men is obviously a core constituency of the Republican party. Since 1972 we haven't won an election with less that 58%. The lower numbers in 2008 can be attributed to the same reasons provided above for White Women. Both were also affected by the Economic crisis and McCain's unfocused response.

Key takeaways:

• Hold the majority of Men
• Reverse the trend toward Democrats among women
• Republicans cannot be a majority party with +90% of blacks voting Democrat, look for sub-segment of socially conservative Blacks to target
• Hispanics are the best opportunity to improve among minorities, they are growing and don't have a historical bias toward either party. Immigration is a key issue.
• Asians are a small percentage but swing voters in key states.
• Restore the trend of growth among White Men and Women that was interrupted in 2008.

coming sooon... Part 3: Age and Religion

Signing off...JCB

Source: http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/national-exit-polls.html Sphere: Related Content

A historical guide to the future of Conservatism: Part 1

As I wrote in a previous post, the Obama victory in 2008 was significant but not historic. There was only a slight change in the electorate from 2004. Karl Rove published a similar article in the Wall Street Journal analyzing the 2008 numbers.

As my analysis will show, it has been part of a growing momentum by the Democrats that finally had the right mouthpiece. Despite the hungry encircling wolves, Conservatism is wounded but not dead. It can be resurrected with the right ideas and leadership.

I will be framing this analysis around the past, but focusing on where we need to go to restore conservatism. This will be a multi-part series that will breakdown the different demographics, what the macro & micro trends are, and how we can apply our Principles to where they are headed.

Part 1: Popular Voting in aggregate
Obama won the Popular Vote by 6% (53-46%). While that may seem substantial compared to Bush's 3% and Gore in 2000, by historical accounts it is only an average margin of victory. Bill Clinton won by 8% in 1996, as did George H.W. Bush in 1988. Setting the victory celebrations aside, there is a noticeable trend in the popular vote gains by Democrats since 1984. Some would say that they had no where to go but up at that point, but they have sustained a steady growth the past 24 years. Republican meanwhile have received a downward trend in the popular voting during that same time frame. While there have been some ups and downs, it has trended statistically downward.

http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dgh6x7fv_6f36vh7dx

As my further analysis will show, there is not a single specific demographic that can be attributed to these aggregate trends. Rather it is a complex set of circumstances that damaged the Republican brand and got us to this point.

Part 2: Popular vote trends by Gender

Signing off...JCB

Source: http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/national-exit-polls.html
Sphere: Related Content

2008: Not a Landslide, not a blowout, not a realignment

Jay Cost at RCP is quickly becoming one of the writers I anticipate the most. His approach is similar to my logic in the use of historical and factual data to analyze and interpret current events or questions.

He helps re-affirm in his most recent post what I analyzed in my previous post ; that past elections to show that this was not a landslide victory for Obama.

Update: An article by Stuart Rothenberg http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/11/is_2008_a_realigning_election.html Sphere: Related Content

The Historical significance of Obama: 2008

As a person who's interpretations ride on a historical compass, I was inclined to measure the lauded "Obama mandate" as a result of his victory. First I wanted to see how significant his Electoral Vote (EV) totals and margin of victory were in comparison to past elections. Second, I wanted to see how significant his Popular Vote total were in comparison to those same past elections. And finally, in a post to follow, I wanted to see the demographics to judge his constituency and mandate beneficiaries.

Before we get started, the source of all of this data is: Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/

Let's start with the winning Presidential candidates EV as a % of the Total number of available EV. Since EV totals have varied throughout our history, I can't measure the total but rather the percent of the total to measure the scale victory.

Obama in 2008, won 365 of the 537 EV or 68%. Of the 55 elections that preceded 2008, lets analyze how many of the winners got more or less that 68% of the total available EV.

• 26 got less than 68%
• 1 got exactly 68%
• 28 got more than 68%

So in terms of capturing a percentage of the available EV, this was an average election. When we put it on a graph we see that this election is lackluster in regard to the victories in 1984, 1972, 1964, 1936, 1864, 1820, and 1804. In the past 20 years we had more competitive races. Excluding the rollercoaster from 1936 to 1984, this ironically trends more like the turn of the 20th century than in any other point. Coming off some tight victories (divided populous) we see a growing pattern from 1876 to 1932 with increasingly aligned population (Republicans won 9 of those 14 elections). So maybe this indicates a coming tide of Democratic control of the Executive, but let's examine further.

http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dgh6x7fv_0cqwbhcgj

Next I wanted to look at the Margin of Victory in EV as a % of the total available EV.

In 2008 Obama's Margin of Victory was 193 EV (365-192) which is 36% of the total 537 EV. Again let's compare that with the 55 elections preceding 2008:

• 25 got less than 36%
• 2 got exactly 36%
• 28 got more than 36%

More evidence that this was an average victory. Translate the margin of victory into alignment of the electorate behind a candidate, party, or ideas and historically the victory doesn't seem all that grand. When put on a graph, most of the results match the % of total numbers above due to the dominance of 2 parties. However, when you look at some of the blowout victories in history, they are winning by +80% of available EV. That's a unified country! So this analysis only re-enforces the first's conclusion that Obama's victory is substantial but not historic.

http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dgh6x7fv_2cj5x75jx

Now let's look at the Popular Vote. Note that the Popular Vote is only regarded from 1824 forward. Due to lack of accuracy and tracking prior to that election, the numbers of previous elections are generally discarded.

In 2008 Obama received 52.6% of the popular vote. Comparing the 46 elections from 1824 to 2004:

• 26 got less than 52.6%
• 0 got exactly 52.6%
• 20 got more than 52.6%

Once again, in mathematical context this is only a average victory and indicates a polarized electorate. Since 1988 the winner has not had more than 50% of the popular vote. Even in the blowout elections they barely broke 60%.

http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dgh6x7fv_4ftthr3cq

So why is this considered such a big election win? My hypothesis:

1. We have had so many close election recently so, short-term memory is the cause
2. First election in a long time that didn't include a present or former President or Vice President
3. The majority of people feel that the country in on the wrong track, so there is a longing for unity and direction
4. The gains for the Dems in Congress.
5. The media/pundits' guy won!
6. The other historical significance; 1st Black President.

The more they overhype this victory, the more difficult it will be for Obama to meet the expectations. It will also make it easier for Conservative to re-brand the Republican party. From now on I will refer to it as the "New Republican Party". I suggest this tag is adopted by the GOP Leadership once the necessary changes take place because the Republican Party is a damaged brand.

The good news is that there is still a Conservative voter base to build upon. In my next post I'll analyze the Exit Poll data to figure out where Obama gained, who is constituency is, and where we need to target in this re-birth.

Signing off...JCB

Sphere: Related Content

Barack is the "Jimmy Carter" candidate?

Another interesting read this evening; Mark Moyar's '1976 is Back'.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTQ1ODVkYjc5ZDFkNzM3ZTc1ODc0Y2YxY2E0YWFkZGM

In victory John McCain could be compared to Truman. In defeat I hope he becomes the next Goldwater, lighting a conservative revolution for the future leaders (Pawlenty, Palin, & Co.).

Signing off...JCB Sphere: Related Content

Resurrection of Harry Truman

I urge all of you to get familiar with the biography and history of one Harry S. Truman. We are going to hear his name a lot in the next 3 months for 2 reasons:

1. If McCain makes this comeback, it will be the equivalent of the Truman-Dewey in 1948. Dewey was ahead late and all of the media had called it in his favor. Dewey was running against a very unpopular President (Truman himself) and the media loved him.
2. As Bush exits, many pundits will invoke Truman as a comparison in low approval ratings at the end. Historians will make the comparison that Bush will be judged much kinder by history then his contemporaries for making the tough decisions despite negative public opinion, much like Truman. Bush will be compared to Truman in his presently perceived ineptitude, but legacy will show a man challenged by emotional presence rather than an ignorance or lack of intelligence.

Signing off...JCB

Sphere: Related Content