Tag: Democrats

By: Inoljt, http://thepolitikalblog.wordpr…



Some of you may recognize this map.



For those who don’t, this is Ronald Reagan’s landslide election over his hapless opponent Walter Mondale.

Unfortunately, for those who look for political trends, this map hides more than it reveals. For example, Reagan wins Massachusetts, but reasonable people would agree that Massachusetts is normally a Democratic state.

Here is a more revealing map.



You probably don’t recognize this map. There’s a good reason for that – there’s never been a presidential election with the above results.

More below the flip.

In fact, the previous electoral college is what would have happened if Walter Mondale and Ronald Reagan won an equal share of votes. The blue states are those in which Reagan won with less than 18.2%, the exact amount by which he beat Mondale.

This map bears an eerie resemblance to today’s electoral maps. For example, here is the 2000 presidential election, in which Bush and Gore effectively ran to a dead heat.



There have been some changes since Reagan’s time. The Northeast has been turning blue; it is much harder today for Republicans to win a state like New Jersey or Maine. California has also been changing; Reagan would have lost it by only 2% in the hypothetical. To compensate, Appalachia has been moving the other direction; Democrats are hard-pressed to turn Tennessee and West Virginia blue nowadays. Places like Missouri and Kentucky were less than 3% redder than the nation in 1984. That was not the case last November.

By and large, however, what is striking is the degree to which the electoral maps look alike. For all the talk  nowadays about blue states turning red and red states turning blue, much more has remained the same than has changed. Democrats do well in the Pacific Coast, the Midwest, and the Northeast; Republicans do well in the Mountain West, the Plains, and the South. The Democratic and Republican coalitions remain much the same as they were two decades ago.

By: Inoljt, http://thepolitikalblog.wordpr…

It is a popular today to say that the South has switched from voting Democratic to Republican. Many people are fond of looking at previous electoral maps. Hey, isn’t that funny – the states have completely switched parties. It’s like the Republicans have recreated the Solid South.

That statement is unequivocally false. Most people have no idea how unbelievably Democratic the Solid South was. For half a century, Democrats in the Deep South did about as well as the Communist Party did in Soviet Union elections.

Let’s take a look at a model Republican southern state: Alabama. John McCain won 60.32% of the vote here, his second best showing in the South. Below are the counties in which Mr. McCain won over 70% of the vote (all my statistics below are from http://www.uselectionatlas.org/ – an amazing website).

That’s a lot of counties. The Republicans are doing quite well – about as well as the Democrats used to do in Alabama, many would say.

Here is another map, filled with blue counties.

It is the 1940 presidential election. I invite you to guess – what do these blue counties represent? Counties in which Roosevelt won over 70% of the vote? 80%? 90%? Remember, Roosevelt was quite a popular guy. He must have done pretty well in Alabama, part of the Solid South.

Continued below the flip.

In fact, the blue counties are those in which Roosevelt won over 95% of the vote in 1940. In all, he won 85.22% of the good folk of Alabama.

Those are incredible numbers. If today that result occurred, we would all cry fraud.

Of course, fraud – of a sort – was occurring in Alabama at that time. As everybody knows, blacks were not allowed to vote at that time. Notice how all but one of the blue counties surround Alabama’s Black Belt. What is less well known, however, is that many poor whites (more likely to vote Republican) were also unable to vote. The poll tax didn’t hurt just African-Americans, after all.

Different southern states enacted different voting restrictions with an intent to continue Democratic dominance. Some were more strict; some were less so. Republicans in North Carolina, for example, generally held Democrats to below 60% of the vote; they even won the state in 1928. On the other hand, South Carolina probably disenfranchised the most voters.

Here is the result:



The blue indicates a county that gave the Republican candidate less than 10% of the vote – for nine straight elections, from 1912 to 1944. From 1900 to 1944, South Carolina’s average vote (per election) went 94.89% Democratic, 3.98% Republican.

How did South Carolina achieve this amazing result?

A revealing clue is provided by looking at the voting count numbers. For example, in the year 1912 a total of 50,405 people voted in South Carolina (48,357 of whom supported the Democrat). At that time the census had just reapportioned electoral votes; South Carolina had a total of nine.

By comparing South Carolina to states with similar populations, one can get an idea of how many potential voters were disenfranchised. Kansas, for example, had ten electoral votes; 365,560 people in the state voted that year. West Virginia had eight electoral votes; 268,828 people voted in that state (remember, this was before women’s suffrage). In South Carolina, therefore, several times more citizens “should” have voted than actually did.

In conclusion, to state that the Solid South always voted Democratic is a misnomer. Even to say that it voted extremely Democratic might still be inaccurate. It would be like saying I’m interested in politics. Technically its true, but the picture the words imply far and away understates the reality.

Last night, Markos wrote that Republican Dede Scozzafava was “the most liberal candidate” in the 23rd congressional district race.

This doesn’t surprise. A lot of people, including people here in New York, have made the same argument. Part of it has to do with a lack of research on Scozzafava. The other half of it is a lack of information on the Democratic candidate Bill Owens, who conservatives call “liberal” and some progressives like Markos have called a “Blue Dog.”

After reading Markos’ post multiple times, it seems he uses the following as important points for his “liberal” labeling of Scozzafava.  

– She has been endorsed in the past by the very progressive Working Families Party.

– She is pro-choice and pro-marriage equality, which puts her at odds with the conservatives in the Republican Party.

– She voted to raise taxes when budgets required it.

First, those three points. The Working Families Party does endorse Republicans and allow them to run on their line. It happens, but they are more likely to back a Democratic candidate. Living in New York, my state senator is George Maziarz. He has been endorsed by the Working Families Party in the past because of his connections to people within the WFP.

For Scozzafava, being backed by the WFP can be contributed to a few things. She ran unopposed in 2008 and was not on the Working Families line when she ran for re-election in 2006. She also was not on the line in the 2002 general election. The only times since redistricting in 2002 that she appeared on the WFP line was in 2004 and 2008. In both elections, she ran unopposed. Therefore, the WFP endorsements were more by default than anything. It’s not as if she had to fight for those endorsements with another candidate.

The pro-choice and pro-marriage equality positions are very good and is a breath of fresh air for a Republican. But just as we don’t like it when Republicans try to define us based on social issues, we should not be guilty of the same when it comes to determining whether someone is progressive or not. Is she progressive on these issues? No doubt. But don’t judge a book by its cover.

The last point of Markos: She voted to raise taxes when budgets required it. In New York, that can be seen as a good and/or bad thing. There are good taxes and fees, bad taxes and fees and others that are somewhere in between. Any good progressive in New York will tell you that not all taxes are good and that not all taxes are bad. There is a middle ground. The problem in New York is that we have had too many regressive taxes and not enough progressive taxation. So giving Scozzafava credit for being liberal on this is misguided for the reasons I have shown.

But aside from Markos’ points, I also wanted to address some of the past votes Scozzafava has cast in the Assembly .

– An important issue for progressives in New York has been Rockefeller Drug Law Reform. A bill (A.6085) was passed in the Assembly and a deal was reached with both houses to reform the broken drug laws that led to extreme sentences for some of the most minor offenses. The roll call vote shows that Scozzafava voted against these reforms.

– Earlier this year, the Assembly passed a comprehensive gun package to combat gun violence and put laws in place to provide for better tracking of guns and provide for more accountability. The package includes 13 bills that were passed in the Assembly. Of those 13 bills, Scozzafava voted for only one. That bill was A.7733 and its purpose is to “Authorizes courts to revoke firearms license and seize the weapons of certain individuals.” Essentially, if the person is a threat to the public, courts could take away the firearms license and weapons of that person.

It is safe to say that Scozzafava is pro-gun and clearly anti-gun control of any kind. (I would give her credit for the single “Yea” vote, but it was a unanimous vote in the Assembly. Every Republican voted for it.)

Also, keep in mind that the package came after the shootings in Binghamton, which was a national news story and led to immediate action in the Assembly.

– Scozzafava’s record on the environment is mixed, at best. She voted against the Bigger Better Bottle Bill, but voted for the Green Jobs bill that was unanimously passed in the Assembly. The Assembly passed a package of environmental bills earlier this year. Of the 14 bills included in the package, Scozzafava voted for six of the bills and against eight of them. These were bills that were supported by progressives and the Democratic conference in the Assembly.

– Scozzafava voted against the Farmworkers Bill of Rights that passed the Assembly. This was seen as a pro-labor and pro-worker bill to support farm laborers who face unpleasant conditions in some instances.

– Voted against a bill that would provide additional compensation for police officers in New York City that use a foreign language in the course of their duties. She also voted against legislation that would give the attorney general jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute police misconduct.

– Voted against regulating the use of “no-knock” warrants and monitoring the use of all search warrants.

– Cast a vote against the 2010 Campaign Finance Reform Act, which would provide “for optional partial public financing of certain election campaigns in this state.” (Here is more on this legislation she voted against.)

– Voted against a bill that would require restaurants (with 15 or more outlets in the U.S.) to post the caloric information of menu items. Also voted against a bill banning trans fats in restaurants.

– Voted against legislation that would strengthen New York’s laws against unfair debt collection practices. Also voted against “legislation requiring debt collection firms to provide consumers a written “Debtor’s Bill of Rights” along with their initial debt collection communication.”

– Voted against expanding foreclosure protections. This bill included protections for tenants in property that is being foreclosed.

– Among the many areas, one area that Scozzafava seems to have a consistent record of voting “no” in is housing. This year, the Assembly has passed 20 pieces of legislation related to housing. Of those 20 bills, Scozzafava voted against several of them. The bills she voted against include: A rent increase cap, rent increases linked to inflation rate, Section 8 housing being included in rent regulation, landlord rental unit recovery, affordable housing preservation, excessive rent increase shield and expansion of the Loft Law.

The reality is this: When people say “don’t judge a book by its cover”, you should take their advice. The “cover” on Scozzafava was that she was this progressive Republican because she was backed by the WFP, supported a woman’s right to choose and has been a supporter of marriage equality. But the “book” tells the whole story (as it usually does). Scozzafava has a few positions that are more liberal (on abortion and marriage equality) but most of her positions are, at best, moderate-to-conservative. More often than not, however, she is a conservative.

One more thing: This statement on Scozzafava’s website came after President Barack Obama’s health care address a couple of weeks ago. One of the ideas she pushes? Tort reform. Not exactly the progressive approach to solving the health care crisis, but it’s one of the first (if not THE first) things brought up by Scozzafava.

The conclusion I draw from looking over numerous pieces of legislation is that Scozzafava on most issues is nothing more than your average Assembly Republican. Most of the votes that she did support the Democratic (or progressive) positions came when the whole Assembly voted unanimously for a bill. Scozzafava’s conservative positions are not reflected in the mainstream media, where she is labeled a “liberal” because of her stances on two social issues that, while important, should never define any candidate and should never be the sole indicator of a candidate’s ideology.

I see Scozzafava as someone who is far from the Glenn Becks of the world. But that doesn’t mean she is not conservative. The modern-day conservative is a different breed, but a lot of what Scozzafava stands for resembles an old school conservative. At best, she’s a moderate with conservative leanings. At worst, she’s a conservative Republican whose liberal stances on two social issues have given her an inaccurate label.

Would she be a Susan Collins-type, as Markos suggested? Probably not. Her record has shown that she hasn’t really been willing to buck the GOP party line on big issues (unless the whole GOP goes along with it). There are worse Republicans than Scozzafava, but she isn’t someone I would depend on to cross party lines and vote on a Democratic (and/or progressive) issue.

By: http://thepolitikalblog.wordpr…

This is the last part of my review of the swing state Ohio.

Republican Ohio

What parts of Ohio vote Republican?

All of it, of course, except for the parts that vote Democratic.

That is a pretty facetious answer to a fairly serious question, but there is something to it. Blue Ohio has a set of defined, separate characteristics. Red Ohio does too, but not to the same degree. It is far easier to describe Democratic Ohio than Republican Ohio.

The following map is a good beginning in exploring Republican Ohio.



These are the places which most heavily supported John McCain (for those who are curious, the most Democratic counties were Cleveland, Toledo, Ohio University, and Youngstown). They are located primarily in the southwestern portion of the state, away from the Democratic ‘7’. Interestingly, practically none are part of Appalachia – considered Obama’s weakest region in the country.

Southwest Ohio historically – and to this day remains – the most conservative part of Ohio. Geographically, it is the Republican base; even in Democratic landslides, it often will vote for the red candidate.

There is another trait the highlighted counties have in common: most are semirural and somewhat less populated. Another map helpfully illustrates this.



Compare the two maps. Very few of the counties in which John McCain took over 60% of the vote were populated enough to appear on the above map. There is very little overlap between the reddest parts of Ohio and the densest parts of Ohio – except, importantly, the suburbs of Cincinnati.

More below the flip.

This does not mean, however, that all counties with over fifty thousand votes went blue. Quite the opposite, in fact: many of the yellow counties voted for McCain. Only counties with over one hundred thousand votes tread Democratic. Take a look:



What does this mean?

The yellow counties are an imperfect representation of what famously cost John Kerry the state: the exurban reaches of Ohio, especially in Columbus and Cincinnati. Most of them are well-off and home to middle-class folk, like exurbs in general. White flight played an important role in their formation (although it was not, as some maintain, the biggest motivator). Both McCain and Bush got their largest margins from these places; they constitute an important – perhaps the most important – block of the GOP coalition today.

This has not always been the case. Before 2000, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) tended to give Republican candidates their biggest margins in the state. Today, it has been replaced by the surrounding counties, rapidly growing exurban communities. Nevertheless, Hamilton County remains a reliable Republican stronghold.

Contrary to popular perception, the city Cincinnati itself is not that conservative (not anymore); its deep red suburbs account for the county’s Republican lean. Cities in general never vote Republican, but in GOP strongholds – like Cincinnati – the overwhelmingly red suburban vote outweighs their Democratic lean.

For a visual illustration of Cincinnati’s importance, here is how George Bush did in Ohio:

Cincinnati and its surrounding exurbs provide the largest Republican margins. The exurbs of Columbus are going heavily Republican; so is much of eastern Ohio.

Note, however, that George Bush only won the state by 3.5%. Unfortunately the Times does not have maps of stronger Republican victories (e.g. 1988, 1980).

How has the Republican base changed since 2000? The following map provides a sense of how things stand today.



There is not too much to show. One can see a coherent north-south divide; northern Ohio has become more Democratic, southern Ohio less so. Most of the rural southwest is fairly lukewarm to Obama – but so is the blue east. Interestingly, the exurbs seem to have moved Democratic more than their rural brethren. Note that most counties are blue because the country as a whole voted more Democratic in 2008.

It is difficult to tell how much of this is permanent and how much was specific to 2008. Perhaps the exurban counties were only bluer because of the housing crisis. Certainly a place like Cincinnati (with its large black population) voted for Obama as a person, not the Democratic party. Then again, maybe not; the county supported Bush ’04 by only 5%.

But as a whole, red Ohio seems to vote the same way it has for the past few years (or generations). Neither it nor the Ohio Republican Party has changed much in recent years. The same cannot be said for the Democrats.

By: Inoljt, http://thepolitikalblog.wordpr…

Like most states, Ohio contains several swing areas. Some lean Democratic; others lean Republican. A good politician will usually pick up most of these regions on his or her way to victory.

Swing Ohio

The following map provides a sense of swing Ohio.



Providing balance, the map encompasses two solid Democratic victories and two solid Republican victories. Bearing this in mind, one can readily make out the structural ‘7’ of Ohio politics. Absent three counties, swing Ohio roughly encompasses the outer edges of Ohio’s northern and eastern borders, creating a shape that resembles the number ‘7.’ Strong Democrats win these swing counties and fatten the ‘7.’ Strong Republicans do the inverse.

Let’s look again at Bill Clinton’s 1996 victory.



As noted previously, Clinton is creating a fat ‘7’ in his re-election.

There are several other things that should be observed about Clinton’s victory with regard to swing Ohio. At the bottom of the state, Clinton is winning a group of thinly populated, Appalachian counties. One of these counties is Athens County, home to Ohio State University; it is reliably liberal due to the college. The rest lean Republican. A strong traditional Democrat can and often will win southeast Ohio; if this happens, his Republican opponent is probably going down to defeat.

Bill Clinton is also winning three counties surrounded by red. One of these – Dayton – is the Democratic equivalent of southeast Ohio: it leans Democratic but will occasionally turn up on the other side. In that case the Republican will soon be receiving a concession call.

The other two counties are moving in opposite directions. In Clinton’s day, Clark County – Springfield – and Columbus were two cities squarely in Ohio’s swing category. Since then, however, Springfield has been drifting right: Gore won the county, Kerry and Obama lost it. Meanwhile, Columbus has been doing a hard swing left, so that neither it nor Springfield are swing regions anymore.

Finally, one may note that many places I define as “swing” are colored light red, rather than purple in the first map. This was because of Barack Obama’s peculiar performance in Ohio. The president won the state with an unconventional coalition: he lost much of swing Ohio and made up for it by performing extremely well in Columbus, Cincinnati, and northern Ohio. Whether this coalition was unique to 2008 or foreshadows a structural shift in Ohio is unknown. Personally, I prefer the former explanation.

By: Inoljt, http://thepolitikalblog.wordpr…

This is the second part of an analysis on the swing state Ohio.



Unlike Florida and Pennsylvania, Ohio cannot be easily divided into geographically distinct regions (although they do exist). Instead, I will be examining it through the lens of both partys’ strongholds in the state.

History

During the late eighteenth century Ohio was a consistently Republican state, the equivalent today of North Dakota or Arizona. Democrats often came close behind – four or five points – but never quite won the state until 1912. Their stronghold lay in a ring of rural counties populated by German immigrants (a pattern that has completely disappeared today). But this was never enough to overcome Republican strength everywhere else.

It was Franklin Roosevelt who changed this pattern forever. He laid the foundations of Ohio’s structural politics, which exist to this very day. Roosevelt brought in previously hostile working-class counties along the northeast section of the state. He also shifted most of Ohio’s northern cities to the Democratic side – which had previously leaned Republican.

To see the effect, here is Roosevelt’s 2.85% victory in 1932:



Here is his 4.4% victory eight years later:



The maps are practically inverses of each other – courtesy of the New Deal.

Democratic Ohio

Today Roosevelt’s coalition remains, for the moment, intact; Democrats still dominate the union vote and northern cities. Because both populations reside along Ohio’s northern and eastern borders, Ohio’s Democratic results often form a blue “7.” The greater the Democratic margin of victory, the “fatter” and more defined the shape becomes.

For example, below the flip is Bill Clinton’s 1996 performance, in which he took the state by 6.4%.

By: Inoljt, http://thepolitikalblog.wordpr…

Is Ohio a liberal place? Or is it a conservative place?

I suspect far more people would say the latter rather than the former.

In many respects, Ohio is politically similar to Florida. Both are well-known swing states that hold a bountiful electoral prize. Both lean Republican. Both have large cites that function as pools of Democratic votes. Both also have considerable rural, Republican regions.

But in other ways they could not be more different. Sunny Florida is diverse, growing, and service-oriented. While Florida often votes Republican, it is not exactly conservative. Cold, northern Ohio is a rust-belt giant. It is not very diverse. It is definitely not growing. Florida is new. Ohio is old and conservative.

For the moment Ohio is a bit more conservative than the country at large. For the past eight out of nine presidential elections, it has been a bit redder than the nation. Not much redder, but enough to be noticeable.

I do not think that the future looks bright for the Democratic Party in Ohio. The two are moving in opposite directions. Demographically, Ohio is staying static while the country at large changes. And there are not many truly liberal spots in Ohio – places like Boulder, CO or Seattle. There never were.

Ohio has a lot of unionized, working-class folk who are still voting against Herbert Hoover; they are a core part of its Democratic base. I am not sure how long they will continue to support a party that is becoming, quite frankly, fairly upper-class in ethos. People in West Virginia certainly don’t anymore.

Not that Ohio is doomed to become a Republican stronghold. Places like Columbus are rapidly turning blue, perhaps fast enough to offset losses in working-class counties. And it isn’t inevitable that those counties will start voting Republican. If West Virginia is a prime example of working-class voters who deserted the Democratic Party, Michigan is a prime example of working-class voters that still support it. Barack Obama won a landslide in that state.

Nevertheless, my gut still tells me that Ohio and the Democratic Party are shifting farther and farther away from each other. These things can reveal themselves very quickly in politics. In 1988, California was a red state that had voted Republican for six elections in a row. Then one day it was won by Bill Clinton – and it has never gone back since then. In 1996 West Virginia had gone blue for five out of the past six elections. Then George Bush won the state – and now we consider it a rock-hard Republican state.

That may be the fate of Ohio.

By: Inoljt, http://thepolitikalblog.wordpr…

This is the last part of an analysis on the swing state Florida.

Miami-Dade County

Here is how John Kerry did in south Florida:



Here is how Barack Obama performed:



Broward and Palm Beach are marginally smaller, when compared to Obama’s performance. The big difference, however, is with Miami-Dade. Kerry won it by 6%; Obama won it by 16%.

There is no other place in Florida (and, perhaps, the country) like Miami-Dade. Palm Beach and Broward counties are retiree destinations; Miami is home to immigrants and refugees from all Latin America. More than 60% of the population is Latino – and only 3% of them come from Mexico. The Miami accent is unique compared with the nation. Local government is distinct from other counties in Florida.

One would expect Miami to be one of the most Democratic places in the nation, much like New York City or Chicago.

It is not.

Continued below the flip.

Obama won the five boroughs of New York City by 59%: a 4 to 1 margin. He won Cook County (Chicago) by 53%, with more than three-fourths of the vote. In contrast, Obama took 58% of Miami-Dade county – less than the amount by which he won New York City. The 2008 Democratic performance in Miami is comparable to their performance in cities such as Dallas (57% of the vote) and Sacramento (58% of the vote).

Much of this is due to the Cuban vote, the city’s largest demographic group. Refugees from Castro’s Cuba, staunchly anti-Communist, and faithful Republicans ever since the Bay of Pigs fiasco; Cubans vote as strongly Republican as Jews vote Democratic. In 2000, George W. Bush won about four out of five Cubans, helped by Cuban anger over Al Gore’s role in the Elian Gonzalez affair. In 2008 Obama won around 35% of their vote, based on exit polls. This was the best performance of a Democrat with Cubans in recent memory.

Their influence ensures that Miami remains a competitive, Democratic-leaning city. Democrats usually end up winning it, but their margins are severely cut. And occasionally it will turn up in the Republican column – as happened during the 2004 Senate race. There, Mel Martinez, a Bush ally, won Miami-Dade on his way to a one percent victory.



Democrats often hopefully comment that demographic shifts will slowly move Cubans leftward, as a new generation of Cubans, less concerned with Castro and communism, replaces their more militant elders. Perhaps. But that process will be the work of decades, not a single election cycle. For the moment the Cuban vote remains strongly Republican.

In 2008 the Democrats challenged two entrenched, Republican congressmen in south Florida: the Cuban Diaz-Balart brothers. The races were closely watched, so much that the New York Times Magazine aired an article dedicated to them. In the end, both Republicans won by margins larger than expected. Their continuing presence points to the steadfastness of the Cuban Republican vote.



Conclusion

Of the three most commonly cited swing states, Florida is the most conservative. The state can be divided into unique blocs, each of which has a distinct culture. The first, northern Florida, shares much/is part of the Deep South. Voting patterns reflect this. The populous I-4 corridor – Florida’s so-called swing-region – leans Republican, although Democrats perform well in Tampa Bay and Orlando. Finally, south Florida – diverse and populous – is the Democratic base, although the Cuban vote in Miami blunts their strength.

Whether Florida will remain this way is uncertain. Florida is an immense and diverse state. It is home to the Panhandle and Miami – two places opposite as night and day. Most every part of America can be found in the varied peoples that reside there. And certainly, it will continue to be an important swing state, sought after by both parties. Whoever ends up winning Florida is well on his or her way to becoming president.

By: Inoljt, http://thepolitikalblog.wordpr…



This is the fourth part of an analysis on the swing state Florida.



The Miami Metropolis

Diverse, populous, sun-baked – south Florida is far different from the rest of the state. It is the Democratic base, where liberals win their biggest margins.

Like most liberal places in this country, south Florida contains incredibly diversity; ethnic minorities compose a large share of the population. The region as a whole has reached majority-minority status. Blacks, Jews, Latinos ranging from Cubans to Nicaraguans, and many others call south Florida home.

Urban and densely populated – again, a trait common to Democratic-voting regions – South Florida is the seventh largest metropolitan region in the country. Most of its population resides along Florida’s southeastern shore, on a strip of land often only a few miles wide. More people voted in Miami-Dade and Broward than any other county out of the three swing states being reviewed (Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylania). Both counties are part of south Florida.



If south Florida, with its vast population, behaved like liberal Philadelphia, John Kerry would be president of the United States and Barack Obama would have won the state by double-digits.

That does not happen.

Continued below the flip.

While Palm Beach County and Broward County (the two top counties in south Florida) are solidly Democratic, they are far and away from the most liberal places in the country. Palm Beach, like many liberal-leaning suburbs, gives Democrats a 3:2 edge. Broward, a deeper shade of blue, gives Democrats two-thirds of its vote. Both places have voted this way consistently for the past four elections. Miami-Dade county, which is culturally and economically an entity by itself, behaves somewhat differently.

Here is how Barack Obama did in the Miami metropolis:



Like most Democratic candidates, he obtains huge margins. Compare the size of the circles here to those in the I-4 corridor (this can’t be done regarding northern Florida, unfortunately). They’re a magnitude bigger.

Several demographic factors lie behind Democratic strength in Palm Beach and Broward, the top two blue circles (Broward is the middle one). Palm Beach has a substantial black population, slightly above the national average. Latinos also compose a double-digit voting bloc – although many are Cubans, diluting their impact. Moreover, Palm Beach is the wealthiest county in Florida. While not all extremely rich areas vote Democratic, as a whole they tend to be bluer than the country at large.

Then there is the Jewish vote.

More Jews live in south Florida than anywhere else in the world, except for the state of Israel. Most are retirees living out their golden days in sunny Florida. Jews, much like their Catholic brethren, have a long history of voting for Democrats. In today’s world, their leftward stances on social issues drive them to Democrats. Mike Dukakis was the last Democrat to win less than 70% of the Jewish vote. The last Republican to beat a Democrat amongst Jews was Warren Harding, in 1920. And that was because 38% of them voted for a socialist.



Up to 20% of Palm Beach County is Jewish, an important Democratic advantage. This constituency gave Obama 78% of the vote in 2008, contributing heavily to his overall victory. In neighboring Broward County, approximately 12-13% of the population is Jewish (a decrease in recent years). There too, Jews helped increase Obama’s margin in the county.

Broward County is similar in many respects to Palm Beach. It is one of Florida’s wealthiest counties. Latinos comprise more than one-fifth of the population (although, again, there are many Republican-leaning Cubans). There are a number of Jewish voters, as noted previously. Finally, African-Americans comprise slightly less than one-fourth of the population. Their relatively larger presence translates to a stronger Democratic vote compared with Palm Beach.

A final note. In 2000, Al Gore chose Senator Joe Lieberman, a Jewish-American, as his running mate. In large part due to this, he performed extraordinarily well in Palm Beach and Broward; Lieberman’s presence ensured unusually high Jewish support. In fact, Gore did better than Obama in the two counties, despite Obama’s far stronger national performance.

Florida’s razor-thin margin in 2000 is a major reason pundits today regard it as a swing state. However, as the above analysis indicates, much of Gore’s strength was unique to him (or rather, his running-mate). Relative to the generic Democrat, Gore overperformed. This was why John Kerry’s campaign, which competed so hard in Florida, was taken aback by the margin he lost by. To this day, Democrats assume that Florida is a more liberal place than it actually is. Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, and the Jewish vote are largely responsible for this.

This is part three of a series on the political structure of the swing state Florida.

The I-4 Corridor

If there is a holy grail of Florida politics, it is winning the I-4 corridor. This refers to the Interstate 4 highway, which begins in Tampa Bay, travels though Orlando, and ends in Daytona Beach.

Quite a lot of people live in the I-4 corridor. It’s far more populated than northern Florida (and northern Florida itself is relatively dense compared to other parts of the South). While parts of south Florida are far more people-heavy, as an aggregate central Florida has a slightly greater population. The I-4 corridor can be compared to a gigantic suburb, with an unusually high number of retirees. Granted, there are cities, but they are more alike to Phoenix (which is really just a big suburb with skyscrapers) than New York.

The picture above indicates counties in which more than 100,000 votes were cast in 2008; it is a rough indication of voting density. There are a scattering of counties with more than a hundred thousand voters in northern Florida; actually Obama does quite well in the highlighted counties. Most of south Florida is also yellow. Then there is an empty region – the Everglades. And above that is the I-4 corridor, which is nearly entirely highlighted. The center yellow counties are actually a rough definition of the I-4 corridor.

The I-4 corridor is often considered to be the “swing” region of Florida. The metropolitan areas that lie inside it are the heart of central Florida, and they have enormous importance. The percentage by which a politician wins the I-4 corridor often mirrors his overall performance in the state.

Continued below the flip.

For a so-called “swing” area, though, central Florida is quite conservative. It can be characterized, like Florida itself, as a Republican-dominated region with a few Democratic strongholds. The “average” county in central Florida leans Republican, with a few exceptions. And remember, the “average” county is quite populated.

What are the “exceptions,” the parts of I-4 that lean Democratic? They’re generally more populated than the mean. They have high levels of minorities. They’re places like Tampa Bay and Orlando. Osceola County has a large Puerto Rican community; it leans Democratic. Democrats sometimes do well in the communities north of Tampa. To be clear, “doing well” means winning these counties by ten percent or so; Democrats generally don’t pull off 60% or more of the vote anywhere in the I-4 corridor unless it’s a landslide.

Here is the performance of a relatively weak Democrat, John Kerry, in the I-4 corridor:



John Kerry gets absolutely pummeled. There is a sea of red counties. This is the reason why John Kerry lost Florida.

Here is the performance of a stronger Democrat, Barack Obama:



He does better. Obama’s probably winning the I-4 corridor, largely due to his landslide victory in Orlando – where he took 59% of the vote, the highest Democratic performance since 1944. Still, it’s a very very close thing (actually, Obama’s only leading by several thousand votes if one adds up all the counties pictured). Compared with how the Democrats did nationally, winning by 7.2%, that’s a very unimpressive result.

McCain and Obama essentially ran even in central Florida, or Florida’s “swing” region. They also ran even in Missouri, Indiana, and North Carolina. To say that the I-4 corridor is as conservative as North Carolina is an eye-opening statement. But the data backs it up.

There is hope for Democrats, nevertheless. The type of conservatism typified by central Florida seems like a softer, more suburban type of conservatism. Central Florida voters are probably more accepting of Democrats and willing to vote for them. Republicans won most counties in the I-4 corridor – but they did by 10 points, not by 40. Using an analogy earlier from this post, Central Florida Republicans are more akin to Phoenix Republicans than their northern Florida counterparts. While the I-4 corridor didn’t vote for Clinton in ’92, it did so in ’96. In contrast, the conservatism typified by northern Florida and the Deep South is deeply ingrained and rock-hard. Only a tidal wave can change voting patterns there.

Moreover, demographic change may shift central Florida leftward. This is especially evident in Orange County (Orlando) and Osceola County. In 1992, Orange County gave George H.W. Bush one of his largest margins in central Florida; he won it by double-digits. In 2008, it was Obama’s best-performing county in the region. The U.S. Census estimates that around 40% of the population is black or Latino, highly Democratic voting blocs. Rapid Puerto Rican immigration into Osceola County, too, has led to a nearly 30% voting shift since 1992, according to the Times.

For the moment, nevertheless, the I-4 corridor is roughly as conservative as North Carolina in terms of votes. To summarize so far: northern Florida, commonly considered the Republican base, is as red as the Deep South. Not parts of the Deep South; the Deep South as a whole. The I-4 corrider, which is called Florida’s “swing” region, swings blue just as much as Indiana, Missouri, and North Carolina did in 2008. Historically, it’s probably been closer to Missouri; to call central Florida as red as Indiana or North Carolina is probably an overstatement.

Miami, as we shall see, is about as liberal as Dallas and Sacamento.

–Inoljt, http://thepolitikalblog.wordpr…