The Mountain West consists of Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, Montana, and Idaho. This region is a growing region, having outpaced the population growth of the US in the last 50 years. Overall, certain states within this region can be considered the strongest Republican states within the US, most notably Wyoming, Utah, and Idaho. However, the Democrats have been able to win some of these states in statewide and national elections. For this segment of this series, I’m also exploring the US Presidential elections since 1960.
US Presidential elections Realignment
The following is a history of how each state supported the Democratic candidates:
1960: Kennedy wins NV and NM
1964: Johnson wins all but AZ
1968 thru 1988: Dem. candidate did not win any states
1992: Clinton wins NV, CO, MT, and NM
1996: Clinton wins AZ, NV and NM
2000: Gore wins NM
2004: Kerry doesn’t win any states
2008: Obama wins CO, NM, and NV
Overall, this region has supported the Republican candidates in most general elections. In the last 13 Presidential elections, the Republican candidate has swept this region 7 times! It’s also important to point out that NV has given its electoral votes, except in 1976, to the winning candidate every year since 1916.
US House Representation Realignment
After the 1960 general election, the Democrats had approximately 60% of all house seats (and 64 of the 100 senate seats). I have inserted below the results of certain general elections.
1960: 11(D), 5(R)
1964: 13(D), 4(R)
1966: 8(D), 9(R)
1968: 6(D), 11(R)
1972: 9(D), 9(R)
1974: 11(D), 8(R)
1976: 10(D), 9(R)
1980: 7(D), 12(R)
1982: 8(D), 16(R)
1988: 11(D), 13(R)
1992: 11(D), 13(R)
1994: 6(D), 18(R)
1996: 4(D), 20(R)
2000: 6(D), 18(R)
2004: 8(D), 20(R)
2006: 11(D), 17(R)
2008: 17(D), 11(R)
Before the 2008 elections, the Democrats had not obtained a majority of these seats since 1976, and even then it was partially due from the Watergate years. The Republicans really dominated this region in the 1990’s, and in 1996 the GOP controlled all but 4 of this region’s house seats. In 2008, NV-3, NM-1, NM-2, CO-4, ID-1, and AZ-1 switched hands from the GOP to the Dems.
US Senate Representation Realignment
1960: 11(D), 5(R)
1964: 10(D), 6(R)
1966: 10(D), 6(R)
1968: 9(D), 7(R)
1972: 9(D), 7(R)
1974: 9(D), 7(R)
1976: 7(D), 9(R)
1980: 5(D), 11(R)
1982: 5(D), 11(R)
1988: 6(D), 10(R)
1992: 6(D), 10(R)
1994: 5(D), 11(R)
1996: 4(D), 12(R)
2000: 3(D), 13(R)
2004: 4(D), 12(R)
2006: 5(D), 11(R)
2008: 7(D), 9(R)
The Democrats occupied the majority of the Rocky Mountain senate seats until 1976, and ever since the GOP has had the upper hand. 2000 was the lowest point, with the Dems occupying only 3 Senate seats. Since 2000, the Democrats have regained both CO seats, a NM seat, and a MT seat.
Conclusions:
This region is growing, and as such both the Democratic and Republican party alike should fight like crazy to gain a foothold within. As of today, this region on a National front will be a fight for both parties. You have NM (leaning Democratic State), CO and NV (true purple states), AZ (a leaning Republican state, but a state that is growing at a rapid pace), and MT (a moderate Republican state that came within 5% of voting for Obama). ID, UT, and WY are very reliable Republican states, but all 3 states will support a Democrat in the House (UT-2, ID-1. WY-AL would have been close if Cubin ran for reelection). Nothing within this region should be taken for granted.
Overall, I’m not overly optimistic about retaining our 17-11 advantage in the House. NM-2, ID-1, NV-3 and CO-4 will provide us with some intense, partisan battles. If we split these 4 seats, I’ll be jumping out of my seat with joy. In the Senate, Reid is obviously in a lot of trouble in regards to his reelection prospects. The Democrats will be hard pressed in finding races where we will play some offense against the Republicans.
By 2012, the National Popular Vote bill could guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President (for example, ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote) have come about without federal constitutional amendments, by state legislative action.
The bill is currently endorsed by over 1,707 state legislators (in 48 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado– 68%, Iowa –75%, Michigan– 73%, Missouri– 70%, New Hampshire– 69%, Nevada– 72%, New Mexico– 76%, North Carolina– 74%, Ohio– 70%, Pennsylvania — 78%, Virginia — 74%, and Wisconsin — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska — 70%, DC — 76%, Delaware –75%, Maine — 77%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Rhode Island — 74%, and Vermont — 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas –80%, Kentucky — 80%, Mississippi –77%, Missouri — 70%, North Carolina — 74%, and Virginia — 74%; and in other states polled: California — 70%, Connecticut — 74% , Massachusetts — 73%, Minnesota — 75%, New York — 79%, Washington — 77%, and West Virginia- 81%.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in 19 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes — 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote…
Nevada has supported a losing Presidential candidate seven times although only once in the last 100 years (Ford in 1976). The other exceptions included voting for William Jennings Bryan three times (1896,1900,1908), voting for Populist James Weaver in 1892, voting for Republican James Blaine in 1884, and voting for Hancock in 1880.
Carter had to win 12 of 13 southern states to win with 297 electoral votes. The one exception was Virginia.
I don’t know, i think Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado are what I call the “South-West”. They are more urbanized than the others in the “Mountain West’. The problem with my classification would be Utah. it’s right in-between Nevada and Colorado, but isn’t much like either.