Obama's Stimulus is his First Battle of Manassas

After a brief hiatus I return with a large smile on my face. Obama's attempt steamroll his massive Government stimulus plan past the Republicans is failing. Mitt Romney depicted it best in saying it "will stimulate government not the economy".

With approval rating below 50% in all major polls, Obama's stimulus plan will hopefully die a quick death. Congrats to the Senate and House Republicans for showing the Administration and the country that in opposition you aren't afraid to plant your heals and fight. Keep up the good work.

Unless there is capitulation from Senate Republicans, the Stimulus package will need to be re-drafted which generate Dem vs. Dem squabbling and added opportunity for Republicans to pick apart the pork barrel flank of this plan.

With the tremendous build-up and impending failure, this may be the equivalent of Union Army's blunders during the First Battle of Manassas or Bull Run for Obama legislative agenda. Eager to satisfy impatient politicians seeking a quick victory, Brig. Gen. Irvin McDowell advanced his untested army across Bull Run to face the Confederate Army in haste. He amassed the largest Army on the North American continent (35K+) and tried to bludgeon his way through to victory. After initial successes and public support for the campaign, he was quickly routed into an embarrassing defeat. Sound familiar.

Even in failure Obama has the capacity and political capital to rebuild and win many future victories. But, this would be a crushing blow to his momentum and strategy.

Signing off...JCB

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/05/opinion/polls/main4778192.shtml Sphere: Related Content

2010 Democratic Senate Super-Majority?

Federally elected politicians are successfully re-elected 98% of the time, which makes vacancies and retirements critical to the power players within the two parties.

It is expected today that Sen. Voinovich (R-OH) will announce his retirement in 2010. Along with Sen. Brownback (R-KS) and Sen. Martinez (R-FL) there will be 3 open Republican seats up for election in 2010.

Although there is hope for gains in the House, they probably won't be substantial enough to change the dynamic Democrat majority. Which leaves me with a pessimistic outlook for GOP congressional advances in 2010.

Although, a lot can change in 2 years.

Signing off...JCB 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

Get to know your GOP Sentators

As the final session of 2008 comes to a close and uncertainty remains in the MN and GA races, I thought it would be a good time to take a look at the GOP Senators for 2009.

Assuming Coleman and Chambliss return, there will be 42 Republicans, 56 Democrats, and 2 Independents. Remember that the talk of 60 Senators to override filibusters includes these 2 Independents, Bernie Sanders and Joe Leiberman. Both come from Liberal Democratic backgrounds and states. However, Leiberman has been more aligned with Republicans regarding National Security.

This first image shows all 42 GOP Senators listed alphabetically by state. I've added data on their last election, margin of victory, the winner of that state in the 2008 Presidential election, the Presidential margin of victory in 2008, their next election, the year they were elected/appointed, the number of years in the Senate, and their American Conservative Union (ACU) Rating.
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dgh6x7fv_72ftssw8hj

I wanted to understand who some of the future leaders are going to be. I filtered by those who had an ACU rating greater than 90%, been in the Senate for 8 years or more, and excluded Sen. Brownback who has announced that he will vacate his seat in 2010. That generated the following 8 names. This is a scientific approach and does not include personality and leadership traits.

All 8, with the exception of John Ensign (NV), are from solid Republican states that were won by McCain in 2008. Only 2 face re-election in 2010, which may be another challenging year for Republicans. Jim Bunning (KY) is the only one of the 8 with less than a 10% margin of victory in their last election. So they all have strong support of their constituency for their Conservative politics. Which means they have potential for lasting power and can avoid the threat of not getting re-elected if they choose to remain truly Conservative. Of the 8 I am most familiar with Jon Kyl (AZ) and have been impressed with his recent leadership in the financial crisis and opposition of the bailouts. His is articulate and comes across as an intelligent and persuasive Conservative voice. I'm by no way anointing any of these 8 as "The One" but rather singling them out has players to watch.

For those looking to the most senior members, John McCain (AZ), Richard Shelby (AL), Richard Lugar (IN), Chuck Grassley (IA), Mitch McConnell (KY), Kit Bond (MO), Arlen Specter (PA), and Orrin Hatch (UT). They will obviously play near-term leadership roles as the Republican Committee Chairs and influential Senators. Shelby will be a leading voice on Banking and financial crisis. Lugar on foreign affairs. Specter and Hatch on Judicial appointments. McConnell as the leader of the agenda and so on. But this is a representation of the past. They will be de facto leaders for the next 2-4 years. When I generated the list below, I wanted to see who can lead the resurgence and carry our message for the next decade.

For those who see John McCain as the heir apparent to GOP Senate leadership, he is not. Sure, he has been and will continue to be one of the most influential GOP Senators on policy and agenda. But, he is the quarterback, not the play caller. His strengths are executing the plan and building coalitions to "get things done". Unfortunately in this atmosphere he will have a difficult time quarterbacking the compromises. Democrats have a majority and a perception that the world is theirs. Teaching them otherwise will be decided on the backbone of the GOP. Will they have the mustard to stand up in opposition and filibuster with authority? We will see.
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dgh6x7fv_74srnggtf2

Finally, looking ahead to 2010, there are 19 GOP and 15 DEM Senate seats up for re-election. Of the 19 GOP Seats, there are obvious early targets for the Democrats.

Sen. Brownback (KS) is vacating his seat in 2010, leaving a potential opening with the right candidate.

Looking at the states that Barack won in 2008 and margins of victory for the Senators in their last election:
They will likely not target Sen. Grassley (IA), Sen. Gregg (NH), and Sen. Voinovich (OH). Rather they will focus on Sen. Martinez (FL) who won by less than 1% in '04, Sen. Burr (NC) who won by 5% in '04 and is a state that Democrats are fighting hard to keep in 2012, and I wouldn't be surprised if they make attempts at Sen. Specter (PA) whose clout may not be enough for him to keep his seat in 2010.

Looking at others with closer margins of victory:
The will definitely target Sen. Thune (SD) who won the seat from their former Leader Tom Daschle. After the experiences in KY against McConnell, they will likely Sen. Bunning (KY) who is an easier, yet less impacting, target then Mitch. With Stevens out, they will take a shot at Sen. Murkowski (AK) or any other female GOP candidates (ahem!). Targeting Sen. DeMint (SC) has longer odds given the states history, but he is a first term Senator and would be a blow to the more Conservative side. They will likely not have a chance with Sen. Coburn (OK), despite him being a first term he is in a safe state for GOP Senators. Sen. Bond (MO) could be the alternative to Specter in their attempts to payback the Daschle targeting in 2004. Sen. Isakson (GA) could be another first term target depending on the outcome of this years runoff with Sen. Chambliss (GA). Finally Sen. Vitter (LA) who is a first term Senator who had a large victory margin, but has been in the news for his corruption and cheating could have a difficult race in 2010.
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dgh6x7fv_76gmk44nf5

I will return with a follow-up article, Get to know your DEM Senators. In which I will do the same analysis of current/future leadership and 2010 opportunities.

Signing off...JCB

Source: ACURatings.org, Wikipedia.org, Senate.gov, and USElectionAtlas.org 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

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

Republicans are racist!

This tired old Democrat argument has worn thin with most free-thinking people, but there are still some pretty dumb voters out there! Georgia Democrat John Lewis threw out this little gem according to CNN today when talking about the McCain/Palin ticket:

"George Wallace never threw a bomb. He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who were simply trying to exercise their constitutional rights. Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama."

Liberal media pundits criticized the McCain/Palin campaign for actually bringing up a true fact about Sen. Obama's association with a known domestic terrorist, yet they still see fit to print this kind of garbage from Rep. Lewis. McCain's crime is being Conservative. Rep. Lewis, you're really reaching now, but at the same time you're showing your party's true inner thought processes.

Democrats are for freedom of speech, as long as they agree with it. They are for freedom of religion, as long as it's not Christianity, and they are for human rights, as long as you're old enough to speak up and vote or be exploited for political gain...if you're a baby born after a botched abortion, the concepts of 'human' rights do not apply as far as the libs are concerned.

Lincoln was a Republican, liberal boneheads. Wallace was a Southern DEMOCRAT.


Sphere: Related Content