[QUOTE=Deb C;343092]

Originally Posted by ASB65

I didn't know that you live in Missouri. I was quite familiar with the St. Louis area since I grew up only 3 hours away in the Peoria, Illinois area, but I had never really been any where west of St. Louis until I started making the drive between Texas and Illinois. I must admit the first time I drove through the south western part of the state I really surprised. I had no idea Missouri was so gorgeous. Who would have thought? I just always figured it must be flat like Illinois and Iowa. Anyway, I love that part of the drive. It's very scenic.
QUOTE]

Next time your up this way, let's have coffee together. By the way, I look nothing like the 60s hippie that some here have me pictured as.

It's a date. Of course, I will be dragging my two kids in tow. I don't think you look like a hippie at all. From your pictures, to me you just look like a fashionable, attractive woman.

I've been reading a wonderful little book called How Fargo of You. The author moved up here from Glendale, Arizona in 2005 and the book is basically about how he keeps on being shocked by how NICE and KIND and CIVIL and COMMUNITY-MINDED people around here are. His first "WOW" experience was at a gas station in which he was utterly astonished that people here fill up before they pay, apparently elsewhere it is the opposite because of drive-offs, and mentioned that he was amazed that he was treated as a decent human being and not a potential criminal.

Another anecdote was when he happened upon a political debate on public radio between the 2 candidates for ND Ag Commissioner. He was so shocked by how issue-oriented and civil the discussion was that he started laughing uncontrollably and had to get off the road before he caused an accident from his laughter. he also mentions how technically complex the debate was and castigated folks like Eric that dismiss rural folks here as dumb hicks.

He mentions about how a few neighborhood teens helped them move in, no questions asked, and how a carpenter made them a winter-proof doggy-flap on the door for free.

And finally he talks about how we beat back the flood in 2009, pulling off a seemingly impossible 2 million sandbags put in place in 5 days.



I was a bit shocked, I had always thought that EVERYONE was like this.

[QUOTE=ASB65;343094]

Originally Posted by Deb C

It's a date. Of course, I will be dragging my two kids in tow. I don't think you look like a hippie at all. From your pictures, to me you just look like a fashionable, attractive woman.

In my book, kids are always welcome. I'd love to meet them.

Originally Posted by Odin

I've been reading a wonderful little book called How Fargo of You. The author moved up here from Glendale, Arizona in 2005 and the book is basically about how he keeps on being shocked by how NICE and KIND and CIVIL and COMMUNITY-MINDED people around here are. His first "WOW" experience was at a gas station in which he was utterly astonished that people here fill up before they pay, apparently elsewhere it is the opposite because of drive-offs, and mentioned that he was amazed that he was treated as a decent human being and not a potential criminal.

Another anecdote was when he happened upon a political debate on public radio between the 2 candidates for ND Ag Commissioner. He was so shocked by how issue-oriented and civil the discussion was that he started laughing uncontrollably and had to get off the road before he caused an accident from his laughter. he also mentions how technically complex the debate was and castigated folks like Eric that dismiss rural folks here as dumb hicks.

He mentions about how a few neighborhood teens helped them move in, no questions asked, and how a carpenter made them a winter-proof doggy-flap on the door for free.

And finally he talks about how we beat back the flood in 2009, pulling off a seemingly impossible 2 million sandbags put in place in 5 days.



I was a bit shocked, I had always thought that EVERYONE was like this.

Everyone knows about "Minnesota nice" who has been there.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Everyone knows about "Minnesota nice" who has been there.

James50

Yeah sure! You Betcha!

[QUOTE=Deb C;343096]

Originally Posted by ASB65

In my book, kids are always welcome. I'd love to meet them.

I suppose *I'm* not welcome...

Mama Campisi's on The Hill?

[QUOTE=Poodle;343104]

Originally Posted by Deb C

I suppose *I'm* not welcome...

Mama Campisi's on The Hill?

Hey, if you can put up with my kids, I'd be happy to meet you. I think it would be fun to meet the people from this forum face to face.

I know this sounds silly, but some of you even show up in my dreams. I have no idea what most people look like, so I guess I subconsciously assign faces to the people on this forum. I'm sure most of you look nothing like I imagine though.

Originally Posted by Deb C

bellwether is any entity in a given arena that serves to create or influence trends or to presage future happenings.

I guess when I say bellwether, I mean the predicting of elections. What happened to the Democrats in MO, coupled with the rural areas gaining influence, is pretty much a mirror of what happened country wide. Wouldn't you say?

Missouri would have to be called a red state now, or at least reddish purple. Not since Clinton ran has it voted Democratic in a national election, and we've had 3 close ones since then. If it was very close in 2008, that means it was well beyond average toward Republican.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Missouri would have to be called a red state now, or at least reddish purple. Not since Clinton ran has it voted Democratic in a national election, and we've had 3 close ones since then. If it was very close in 2008, that means it was well beyond average toward Republican.

The pattern that pushed five states (Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia) from supporting Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, rejecting Al Gore and John Kerry by increasing levels, and really rejecting Obama. It isn't race; these states might vote for a Southern moderate like Carter (1976 if not 1980) or Clinton, but not a Northern liberal since JFK. Well, West Virginia did vote for Dukakis against a Republican landslide.

The critical area seems to be the central and southern Appalachians and the Ozarks in a region stretching from eastern Oklahoma in the west and the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia and North Carolina, encompassing most of Pennsylvania except for coastal lowlands and greater Pittsburgh; almost the whole of West Virginia, eastern and central Tennessee; southern Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio; northern Alabama and Georgia; northern Arkansas not in the Mississippi basin; eastern Oklahoma; and southern Missouri. These areas have a very old culture rooted in the very individualistic, but unhierarchical and often wild Backwoods inland from the coasts. Settlement was by Scots-Irish and North English stock who got along badly with about anyone else. Their areas of mass settlement were unattractive to the big planters of the South (too cold and hilly for plantations that had the large slave plantations), the Quakers and Mennonites of Maryland and southeastern Pennsylvania. and in fact almost any other wave of immigrants. The area could keep its traditions for centuries with little input from others. This is the home of country music. Tellingly, Branson and Nashville are both in this area.

It has few blacks. West Virginia is one of the whitest states in America, and Kentucky has a below-average percentage of blacks Arkansas and Tennessee have blacks, but largely in the Mississippi lowlands. It opposed slavery almost as much because it hated blacks as it hated anyone exotic (let us say German settlers) as because slavery was incompatible with the culture of rugged individualism. It is rural. There are some cities, often on the fringe (Atlanta, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Tulsa, Little Rock, Pittsburgh) but those easily warn Mountain Folk why they don't belong in the Big City. Sarah Palin struck a chord with them by praising their world as the Real America, only to do badly in the Big City full of minorities, atheists, non-Christians, gays and lesbians, intellectuals, liberals, and other 'alien' types.

It has long been an area of below-average educational attainment. Higher education might spoil the culture, making people want to listen to Bach or Tchaikovsky, read Goethe and Cervantes, question their religious heritage (first Presbyterian, but often Southern Baptist, Church of Christ, or other "Holiness" churches), and want more goodies than rustic life allows. This is the land of Li'l Abner and the Dukes of Hazzard -- unflattering stereotypes outside the region, but honored there. It is in fact pretty country unlike the monotonous plains north of I-70 between Kansas City and Columbus; the flat and hot, humid South in which very different people live; or the Great Plains.

White voters of low educational attainment used to vote heavily Democratic. They now vote heavily Republican. It may be easy to associate some states with their large cities, and such places as Louisville, Memphis, Little Rock, and New Orleans were strongly Democratic in 2008. Rural areas no longer were unless the majority was black. In Missouri it is easy to think of greater Kansas City and St, Louis to the exclusion of all else -- but southern Missouri is a land of Mountain Folk who distrust intellectuals, minorities, non-Christians, gays and lesbians, and other cosmopolitans that dwell in the Sodom and Gomorrah that is the ominous and unsettling Big City.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The pattern that pushed five states (Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia) from supporting Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, rejecting Al Gore and John Kerry by increasing levels, and really rejecting Obama. It isn't race; these states might vote for a Southern moderate like Carter (1976 if not 1980) or Clinton, but not a Northern liberal since JFK. Well, West Virginia did vote for Dukakis against a Republican landslide.

The critical area seems to be the central and southern Appalachians and the Ozarks in a region stretching from eastern Oklahoma in the west and the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia and North Carolina, encompassing most of Pennsylvania except for coastal lowlands and greater Pittsburgh; almost the whole of West Virginia, eastern and central Tennessee; southern Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio; northern Alabama and Georgia; northern Arkansas not in the Mississippi basin; eastern Oklahoma; and southern Missouri. These areas have a very old culture rooted in the very individualistic, but unhierarchical and often wild Backwoods inland from the coasts. Settlement was by Scots-Irish and North English stock who got along badly with about anyone else. Their areas of mass settlement were unattractive to the big planters of the South (too cold and hilly for plantations that had the large slave plantations), the Quakers and Mennonites of Maryland and southeastern Pennsylvania. and in fact almost any other wave of immigrants. The area could keep its traditions for centuries with little input from others. This is the home of country music. Tellingly, Branson and Nashville are both in this area.

It has few blacks. West Virginia is one of the whitest states in America, and Kentucky has a below-average percentage of blacks Arkansas and Tennessee have blacks, but largely in the Mississippi lowlands. It opposed slavery almost as much because it hated blacks as it hated anyone exotic (let us say German settlers) as because slavery was incompatible with the culture of rugged individualism. It is rural. There are some cities, often on the fringe (Atlanta, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Tulsa, Little Rock, Pittsburgh) but those easily warn Mountain Folk why they don't belong in the Big City. Sarah Palin struck a chord with them by praising their world as the Real America, only to do badly in the Big City full of minorities, atheists, non-Christians, gays and lesbians, intellectuals, liberals, and other 'alien' types.

It has long been an area of below-average educational attainment. Higher education might spoil the culture, making people want to listen to Bach or Tchaikovsky, read Goethe and Cervantes, question their religious heritage (first Presbyterian, but often Southern Baptist, Church of Christ, or other "Holiness" churches), and want more goodies than rustic life allows. This is the land of Li'l Abner and the Dukes of Hazzard -- unflattering stereotypes outside the region, but honored there. It is in fact pretty country unlike the monotonous plains north of I-70 between Kansas City and Columbus; the flat and hot, humid South in which very different people live; or the Great Plains.

White voters of low educational attainment used to vote heavily Democratic. They now vote heavily Republican. It may be easy to associate some states with their large cities, and such places as Louisville, Memphis, Little Rock, and New Orleans were strongly Democratic in 2008. Rural areas no longer were unless the majority was black. In Missouri it is easy to think of greater Kansas City and St, Louis to the exclusion of all else -- but southern Missouri is a land of Mountain Folk who distrust intellectuals, minorities, non-Christians, gays and lesbians, and other cosmopolitans that dwell in the Sodom and Gomorrah that is the ominous and unsettling Big City.

Good and accurate analysis, PB. One of your better posts.

The south definitely had pockets of pro-union sentiment in the mountain areas where slave owners were rare. My ancestors were slave owners in east Tennessee who migrated to Georgia in 1863 - right in the middle of the war. There was a mini Civil War in east Tennessee which the pro-union people won. My antecedents were southern sympathizers and were essentially run out of town. There was a lingering pre-Nixon variety Republican party in east Tennessee for most of the 20th century.

James50

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The pattern that pushed five states (Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia) from supporting Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, rejecting Al Gore and John Kerry by increasing levels, and really rejecting Obama. It isn't race; these states might vote for a Southern moderate like Carter (1976 if not 1980) or Clinton, but not a Northern liberal since JFK. Well, West Virginia did vote for Dukakis against a Republican landslide.

The critical area seems to be the central and southern Appalachians and the Ozarks in a region stretching from eastern Oklahoma in the west and the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia and North Carolina, encompassing most of Pennsylvania except for coastal lowlands and greater Pittsburgh; almost the whole of West Virginia, eastern and central Tennessee; southern Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio; northern Alabama and Georgia; northern Arkansas not in the Mississippi basin; eastern Oklahoma; and southern Missouri. These areas have a very old culture rooted in the very individualistic, but unhierarchical and often wild Backwoods inland from the coasts. Settlement was by Scots-Irish and North English stock who got along badly with about anyone else. Their areas of mass settlement were unattractive to the big planters of the South (too cold and hilly for plantations that had the large slave plantations), the Quakers and Mennonites of Maryland and southeastern Pennsylvania. and in fact almost any other wave of immigrants. The area could keep its traditions for centuries with little input from others. This is the home of country music. Tellingly, Branson and Nashville are both in this area.

It has few blacks. West Virginia is one of the whitest states in America, and Kentucky has a below-average percentage of blacks Arkansas and Tennessee have blacks, but largely in the Mississippi lowlands. It opposed slavery almost as much because it hated blacks as it hated anyone exotic (let us say German settlers) as because slavery was incompatible with the culture of rugged individualism. It is rural. There are some cities, often on the fringe (Atlanta, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Tulsa, Little Rock, Pittsburgh) but those easily warn Mountain Folk why they don't belong in the Big City. Sarah Palin struck a chord with them by praising their world as the Real America, only to do badly in the Big City full of minorities, atheists, non-Christians, gays and lesbians, intellectuals, liberals, and other 'alien' types.

It has long been an area of below-average educational attainment. Higher education might spoil the culture, making people want to listen to Bach or Tchaikovsky, read Goethe and Cervantes, question their religious heritage (first Presbyterian, but often Southern Baptist, Church of Christ, or other "Holiness" churches), and want more goodies than rustic life allows. This is the land of Li'l Abner and the Dukes of Hazzard -- unflattering stereotypes outside the region, but honored there. It is in fact pretty country unlike the monotonous plains north of I-70 between Kansas City and Columbus; the flat and hot, humid South in which very different people live; or the Great Plains.

White voters of low educational attainment used to vote heavily Democratic. They now vote heavily Republican. It may be easy to associate some states with their large cities, and such places as Louisville, Memphis, Little Rock, and New Orleans were strongly Democratic in 2008. Rural areas no longer were unless the majority was black. In Missouri it is easy to think of greater Kansas City and St, Louis to the exclusion of all else -- but southern Missouri is a land of Mountain Folk who distrust intellectuals, minorities, non-Christians, gays and lesbians, and other cosmopolitans that dwell in the Sodom and Gomorrah that is the ominous and unsettling Big City.

Dolly Parton, Hatfields and McCoys, Dukes of Hazzard, Lil'Abner, Beverly Hillbillies, Green Acres, etc. In Disneyland it's the area of the Magic Kingdom labelled "Frontierland"--which coalesces the Scot-Irish with their Wild West counterparts. In Hershey Park it's the area called "Minetown". Here in PA, the culture is really focused around "coal". In the county north of mine, they are derrogatively called "coal crackers" or "Skooks". The Boy Scout Camp I work at is at the very precepice of the region.

Don't forget the 19th Century wash of Irish & Welsh immigrants who would work in the mines. My Welsh ancestors settled in the heart of the Lackawanna Valley: Scranton. Which now thanks to The Office looks like a suburb of New York City, but back in the 19th Century was a major station for exporting all that coal from the coal regions.

~Chas'88

Let me see if we can get this wayward thread back on track. Here is a prediction about Republican presidential nominees in 2012. No to Gingrich, Palin, Romney or any sitting house or senate member. This guy's premise is that the electorate will be looking for competence above all in the next President.

And that leaves us with the Republican governors. And if I had to put money down right now, I’d bet that the next GOP presidential nominee right now sleeps in a governor’s mansion — somewhere. Which one? Hah. If I were that smart, I would be putting money down, and I’d also be fabulously wealthy. But we can narrow it down some.

None of the incoming Republican governors will have the time to demonstrate enough competence before the campaign begins in earnest. Nor will they have the time or money or exposure to campaign effectively. So we need a sitting, or just retired, GOP governor known for competence.

Riley, Parnell, Rell, Perdue, Lingle, Otter, Heineman, Gibbons, Carcieri, Rounds, Herbert, and Douglas aren’t much known outside their home states for competence or anything else. Scratch’em all. Brewer? Too controversial for the general election. Perry? I said last year that his “little joke” about seceding from the Union automatically disqualifies him from the Oval Office, and I still believe that. It’s a shame, too — he’s been a pretty good governor, otherwise. I’m leaving out Haley Barbour, too, for no reason other than that’s what my gut tells me. Mark Sanford's “Argentinian Adventure” eliminates him from consideration.

So we’re left with Mitch Daniels, Bobby Jindal, Tim Pawlenty, Chris Christie, and Bob McDonnell. If you have an extra $100 lying around this holiday season, you might think about going over to Intrade and plopping down 20 bucks on each of them. This early, the return could be very nice — and not just on the winning bet.

more here.

This makes sense to me although I have serious doubts any of them can beat Obama.

James50

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Missouri would have to be called a red state now, or at least reddish purple. Not since Clinton ran has it voted Democratic in a national election, and we've had 3 close ones since then. If it was very close in 2008, that means it was well beyond average toward Republican.

I think you may be right now. I was disappointed that we picked McCain over Obama because I wanted us to pick the winner. I will say Obama barely lost it to McCain in 2008 though. The estimated percentage of the vote was identical between the two and in the end McCain edged out Obama. I read the article I read just before the 2008 election so Missouri for one hundred years picked all but one of the presidents. That was the best record in the states.

On the wikipedia page it says one demographic that is effecting the rest of the country, but not so much in Missouri is immigration of Latinos and since they tend to vote D that may be why Missouri is now a red state. Missouri as a bellwether state was probably a 20th century phenomenon and won't continue unless we get some mass immigration.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Dolly Parton, Hatfields and McCoys, Dukes of Hazzard, Lil'Abner, Beverly Hillbillies, Green Acres, etc. In Disneyland it's the area of the Magic Kingdom labelled "Frontierland"--which coalesces the Scot-Irish with their Wild West counterparts. In Hershey Park it's the area called "Minetown". Here in PA, the culture is really focused around "coal". In the county north of mine, they are derrogatively called "coal crackers" or "Skooks". The Boy Scout Camp I work at is at the very precepice of the region.

Don't forget the 19th Century wash of Irish & Welsh immigrants who would work in the mines. My Welsh ancestors settled in the heart of the Lackawanna Valley: Scranton. Which now thanks to The Office looks like a suburb of New York City, but back in the 19th Century was a major station for exporting all that coal from the coal regions.

~Chas'88

A few years ago my husband spent a couple months out at one of the mines in Hazard county, Kentucky. One night he was sitting having a drink at some bar and talking to one of the locals there. He asked this old guy, "So what's the main industry around here?" He was expecting him to say mining, but instead the guy said, "Pot...My husband just said, "Oh really." Then the guy went on to say, "Yep, then moonshine, then coal."

When he first arrived there and checked into the hotel and was asking about restaurants in the area, the hotel desk clerk said, "We just had a 5 star restaurant built here." My husband said, "Oh really, what's it called?" The man told him, "Applebees."

At one point another one of my husband's co-workers from Austrailia was there doing training on some of the mine trucks. This friend told my husband about how one of the local guys kept saying something to him but he couldn't understand a word he was saying because of his accent. So my husband's friend asked another guy to interpret for him. The "interpreter" said, "He is inviting you over to his house for dinner. He wants to cook you up some possum stew."

Whenever my husband travels to different places in the world he likes to bring home a bottle of whatever the popular liquor is from different countries like Rye from Canada, Bajjiu from China, etc. When he came home from that trip he brought me a bottle of strawberry moonshine in a mason jar. I'm afraid to try it, but it's still sitting in my cabinet. I can't bring myself to throw it away because I think it's so funny.

According to my husband, that area of the country is like a whole other world.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

White voters of low educational attainment used to vote heavily Democratic. They now vote heavily Republican. It may be easy to associate some states with their large cities, and such places as Louisville, Memphis, Little Rock, and New Orleans were strongly Democratic in 2008. Rural areas no longer were unless the majority was black. In Missouri it is easy to think of greater Kansas City and St, Louis to the exclusion of all else -- but southern Missouri is a land of Mountain Folk who distrust intellectuals, minorities, non-Christians, gays and lesbians, and other cosmopolitans that dwell in the Sodom and Gomorrah that is the ominous and unsettling Big City.

Have I ever said this?

Originally Posted by ASB65

According to my husband, that area of the country is like a whole other world.

have I ever said this?

Some thoughts about this discussion. They key issue to me is how folks are voting. I have made the points that pbrower made before about the appalachian-ozark line. But whether I or other Californians are "insular" or not, doesn't concern me. Our votes prove that in fact we are among the least provincial states, in our mentality. Those are verifiable statistics, and is all anybody needs to know about who is provincial and who is not. There are no such stats to prove that 30 million Californians are predominantly insular in their attitudes toward other places. Voting is where the rubber meets the road; by your fruits ye shall know them, as Jesus said. I could care less whether anyone is proud of the area where they live, whether New Yorkers think their state is tops, or whether people in the South or Midwest think their area is better for whatever reason. It's good to be proud of where you live. And wherever you are, there will be plenty of intelligent, concerned, broad-minded, talented and progressive folks, and plenty of the reverse. And of whichever generation. Of course, that is all obvious; but it seems I need to say so.

Lots of states have lots of beauty and charm, and the differences are very interesting, as our discussion shows. But if in spite of their charm, or lack thereof, the majority of voters in those states choose absolute lunatics to govern them who are destroying our country and our world, and throwing people out of the street to starve, then that does not reflect well on those states. If you vote like an "ignorant hick," then your record speaks for itself. And if people there don't vote, for whatever reason, that doesn't speak well for them either. The majority of people in the flyover, heartland states have now reverted to exactly how Sinclair Lewis described them during the last 3T in its later years. Provincial indeed.

I can only hope and pray that they wake up soon. People all around the world are fast running out of water, according to current, reliable reports. And it's directly because of how the people of the heartland are voting that will make things much, much worse (and worse most of all for themselves); and we will ALL have to pay. Talk about insular and provincial; most people in those states can't even make the connection! The Andes or Middle East or China and India are just too far away; the majority of heartland Americans are only concerned about their own tax bill, and in upholding trickle-down economics and traditional values.

And, by the way, voting is the subject of this thread, not insularity or geography.

Originally Posted by James50

Let me see if we can get this wayward thread back on track. Here is a prediction about Republican presidential nominees in 2012. No to Gingrich, Palin, Romney or any sitting house or senate member. This guy's premise is that the electorate will be looking for competence above all in the next President.

more here.

This makes sense to me although I have serious doubts any of them can beat Obama.

James50

Of course, Romney and Palin are former governors, so that might qualify them; except that Romney retired a while ago, and Palin quit in the middle of her term to become a media star. Right now I'd bet on Romney over the list of unknown governors, and Obama to win a second term.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Seventeen states and DC haven't gone for a Republican nominee for President since at least 2008. Those comprise all states to the north of the Potomac except New Hampshire; all states bordering the Great Lakes except Indiana and Ohio; and all states bordering the Pacific Ocean except Alaska. According to 270towin.com those states will have between them 243 electoral votes. Sure, the Republicans won Governorships or Senate seats in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, but such shows an electorate more like that of 2002 than like 2012. In essence the Republicans have lost 90% of the Presidential election of 2012 before it starts.

Three states (Iowa, New Hampshire, and New Mexico) have gone for Republican nominees for President only once beginning in 1992 -- once for Dubya. The States that Democrats have won in four or five of the last five Presidential elections will comprise 258 electoral votes. I see no reason for either Iowa, New Hampshire, or New Mexico to each make five for six. It will be difficult for the Republicans to win any of the twenty states that
the Democrats have found reasonably reliable since 1992.

The Republicans could win with that, but they have little wiggle room. Large Hispanic populations in Colorado and Nevada could make those two states even more solid Democratic wins in 2012 than such states as Minnesota, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin.

You are right -- Colorado and Nevada probably win the re-election of President Obama with their combined 15 electoral votes.

So President Obama can win by winning those two states.

States that have gone 4-for-5 or 5-for-5 for Democratic Presidential nominees since 1992 and:

1. Colorado and Nevada (15 together, 273 total)
2. Virginia (13 alone, 271 total)
3. Ohio (18 alone, 276 total)
4. Florida (28 alone, 286 total)
5. Georgia (16 alone, 274 total), possible only in the event of a satisfactory conclusion to the war in Afghanistan
6. Missouri and NE-02* (12 together, 270 total) -- very long shot
7. Missouri and Montana (14 together, 272 total) -- very long shot
8. Colorado and Montana (12 together, 270 total) - I can't see President Obama winning Montana but not Nevada).


Those are reasonably independent situations. I don't need to discuss certain possibilities because those are nearly impossible without one of the above four happening. I can't imagine President Obama winning North Carolina without also winning Virginia, Indiana without winning Ohio, or Arizona without winning both Colorado and Nevada, or anything involving the Dakotas or South Carolina without winning a bunch of other states. Indiana, North Carolina, NE-02, and Arizona, and probably Missouri, are second layers of icing on the cake.

A 269-269 tie is apparently possible with the election going to the states (assuming that the Democrats win majorities in the state delegations) should President Obama win "only" Missouri and win through that convoluted process. In any event, any chance of winning Missouri without winning Ohio, Virginia, Florida, or both Colorado and Nevada seems low in likelihood.

I don't see him barely winning because he is not going to have a strategy that allows the election to hinge upon the decision of some statewide political hack (Katharine Harris in Florida in 2000 or Kenneth Blackwell in Ohio in 2004). I see him using the same beat-the-cheat strategy in 2012 that he used in 2008.

*NE-02 is the Congressional district of Nebraska containing Omaha and some suburban areas. Nebraska and Maine apportion their electoral votes in accordance with two at large and one for each congressional district. Maine is fairly homogeneous in its voting, but Greater Omaha votes very differently from Nebraska as a whole.

The problem with looking at the past 5 elections is that 3 were comfortable wins for the Democrats, 1 was basically a tie, and 1 was a very narrow win for the Republican. There hasn't been a comfortable win by a Republican since 1988.

If you took the 2008 vote and took an across-the-board swing of 14 points (Obama getting 7 points less -- 46 percent and McCain getting 7 points more -- 53 percent), the following States would have swung -- North Carolina, Indiana, Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Nevada, and Wisconsin. None of those States can be thought of as a slam-dunk win for Obama in 2012.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

The problem with looking at the past 5 elections is that 3 were comfortable wins for the Democrats, 1 was basically a tie, and 1 was a very narrow win for the Republican. There hasn't been a comfortable win by a Republican since 1988

It might be a long time before we see another comfortable win by a Republican for president, too. I wrote something about this but haven't published it yet.

Short version: a party that is set to win the South consistently is also set to lose the Northeast, Midwest, and West Coast with equal consistency. That's what the Democrats did for a long time, the two parties being in almost opposite geographic positions of dominance to what they are now. (The difference very SLIGHTLY favors the GOP, as they have retained dominance of most of the mountain states and Southwest, but there aren't many electoral votes in that part of the country.)

From 1860 to 1928 there were 18 presidential elections. The Democrats won four of those, the Republicans won the other 14. Win or lose the election, the Democrats always won most of the Southern states. When they did win, which they did in 1884, 1892, 1912, and 1916, it was usually close. 1912 was an exception, but only because of the third-party candidacy of Theodore Roosevelt, which split the Republican vote with the GOP nominee William H. Taft, giving Wilson a misleading electoral advantage. The popular vote tally in those four elections was:

1884: Cleveland (D) 48.5, Blaine (R) 48.2
1892: Cleveland (D) 46, Harrison (R) 43
1912: Wilson (D) 41.8, Roosevelt (P) 27.4, Taft (R) 23.2 (note that the combined vote for TR and Taft exceeded that for Wilson)
1916: Wilson (D) 49.2, Hughes (R) 46.1

Over the years from 1932 to 1992, more or less, a transition has occurred in which the Democrats lost the South and gained the Northeast, Midwest, and West Coast, while the Republicans have done the opposite. In 1992, even with a southern Democrat as candidate, the Republicans still took most of the South, even as they lost the other three regions where they used to be strong. 1996, much the same. 2000, the same, and of course Bush and Gore were so evenly tied that a Supreme Court decision was required. (Subsequent recounts have shown that Gore actually should have won the election -- barely.) 2004, another close race although one Bush legitimately won this time, but the same pattern holds: the GOP took the South, the Democrats took the Northeast, Midwest, and West Coast almost entirely. 2008, not at all close, but again McCain won almost the entire South, while losing the entire Northeast, Midwest and West Coast.

What I'm getting at here is that the Northeast, Midwest, and West Coast are a much stronger electoral base than the South. If the Democrats can count on winning most states in these three regions, they are only a short hop from the necessary EV total, while the Republicans, holding the South, mountain states, and southwest, have a longer stretch. So if this pattern continues, we are likely to see all future Republicans wins of the White House be close elections compared to Democratic wins, and there will also be more Democratic than Republican wins in general, just as vice-versa prevailed from the Civil War until the Depression.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

They key issue to me is how folks are voting.

Wow. No wonder you come off as so deluded. You think that the way 50%+1 people in an area cast beans is a significant thing, culturally-speaking.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

It might be a long time before we see another "comfortable win by a Republican for president, too. I wrote something about this but haven't published it yet.Short version: a party that is set to win the South consistently is also set to lose the Northeast, Midwest, and West Coast with equal consistency. That's what the Democrats did for a long time, the two parties being in almost opposite geographic positions of dominance to what they are now. (The difference very SLIGHTLY favors the GOP, as they have retained dominance of most of the mountain states and Southwest, but there aren't many electoral votes in that part of the country.)From 1860 to 1928 there were 18 presidential elections. The Democrats won four of those, the Republicans won the other 14. Win or lose the election, the Democrats always won most of the Southern states. When they did win, which they did in 1884, 1892, 1912, and 1916, it was usually close. 1912 was an exception, but only because of the third-party candidacy of Theodore Roosevelt, which split the Republican vote with the GOP nominee William H. Taft, giving Wilson a misleading electoral advantage. The popular vote tally in those four elections was:1884: Cleveland (D) 48.5, Blaine (R) 48.21892: Cleveland (D) 46, Harrison (R) 431912: Wilson (D) 41.8, Roosevelt (P) 27.4, Taft (R) 23.2 (note that the combined vote for TR and Taft exceeded that for Wilson)1916: Wilson (D) 49.2, Hughes (R) 46.1Over the years from 1932 to 1992, more or less, a transition has occurred in which the Democrats lost the South and gained the Northeast, Midwest, and West Coast, while the Republicans have done the opposite. In 1992, even with a southern Democrat as candidate, the Republicans still took most of the South, even as they lost the other three regions where they used to be strong. 1996, much the same. 2000, the same, and of course Bush and Gore were so evenly tied that a Supreme Court decision was required. (Subsequent recounts have shown that Gore actually should have won the election -- barely.) 2004, another close race although one Bush legitimately won this time, but the same pattern holds: the GOP took the South, the Democrats took the Northeast, Midwest, and West Coast almost entirely. 2008, not at all close, but again McCain won almost the entire South, while losing the entire Northeast, Midwest and West Coast.What I'm getting at here is that the Northeast, Midwest, and West Coast are a much stronger electoral base than the South. If the Democrats can count on winning most states in these three regions, they are only a short hop from the necessary EV total, while the Republicans, holding the South, mountain states, and southwest, have a longer stretch. So if this pattern continues, we are likely to see all future Republicans wins of the White House be close elections compared to Democratic wins, and there will also be more Democratic than Republican wins in general, just as vice-versa prevailed from the Civil War until the Depression.

After our most recent election, I think it is hard to say the Midwest is going to consistently vote democratic.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

After our most recent election, I think it is hard to say the Midwest is going to consistently vote democratic.

Everything I said has application only to presidential elections, and to Congressional races to the extent that presidential elections influence them. A candidate capable of appealing to the South is not capable of appealing to the Midwest. But a candidate in a Midwest Congressional race doesn't have to appeal to the South; no Southerners will be voting except the occasional immigrant.

It might be interesting to explore how the Democrats did in Congress in those regions in the pre-Roosevelt era. I have no easily-found stats, but certainly the Democrats did have some Congressmen from the Northeast, or where did the Kennedy clan come from? There was a wing of the party that appealed to immigrants and the working class, and was different from the Southern Democrats, but in presidential elections nobody who could not win the South could even be nominated, and that hurt the Democrats badly. I see every reason to believe it will hurt the Republicans in exactly the same way.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Wow. No wonder you come off as so deluded. You think that the way 50%+1 people in an area cast beans is a significant thing, culturally-speaking.

50%+1 may very well mean it's time to filling up trash cans with millions of some folks...

But, no, you're right, it would have little bearing on the culture.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Lots of states have lots of beauty and charm, and the differences are very interesting, as our discussion shows. But if in spite of their charm, or lack thereof, the majority of voters in those states choose absolute lunatics to govern them who are destroying our country and our world, and throwing people out of the street to starve, then that does not reflect well on those states. If you vote like an "ignorant hick," then your record speaks for itself. And if people there don't vote, for whatever reason, that doesn't speak well for them either. The majority of people in the flyover, heartland states have now reverted to exactly how Sinclair Lewis described them during the last 3T in its later years. Provincial indeed.

I can only hope and pray that they wake up soon. People all around the world are fast running out of water, according to current, reliable reports. And it's directly because of how the people of the heartland are voting that will make things much, much worse; and we will ALL have to pay. Talk about insular and provincial; most people in those states can't even make the connection! The Andes or Middle East or China and India are just too far away; the majority of heartland Americans are only concerned about their own tax bill, and in upholding trickle-down economics and traditional values.

And, by the way, voting is the subject of this thread, not insularity or geography.

What arrogant and over-the-top poppycock. You should be ashamed of posting such nonsense, Eric. why don't you actually COME HERE and see for yourself what the folks here are really like instead of making ignorant pronouncements.