Interesting analysis: Real fight is in Midwest/Interior West

[Hawaii Hiker]

From the www.electoral-vote.com site...."The problem is that westerners tend to be libertarians--keep the government off my ranch and out of my life--and Southern conservatism is strongly in favor of government interference in personal affairs (abortion, gay marriage, Terri Schiavo, etc.). A slogan like "Vote for me and I'll have the government legislate good morality" just doesn't cut it in the West."...

Goes to show, MOST don't want government involvement in their personal lives, thus such people will never vote for a social conservative...

Entire article:



"Richard Baehr wrote a very interesting piece on Fred Thompson. The bottom line is: be careful what you wish for; you might get it. A lot of GOP conservatives are moaning about the current presidential field: Giuliani has a Clinton-sized zipper problem, McCain is too much of a maverick, and Romney can't make up his mind what he's for. Enter the savior: Fred Thompson.

But do the Republicans really need a southern conservative at all? And if they do, what's wrong with Mike Huckabee, an ordained Baptist minister with a proven track record as governor of Arkansas? Baehr makes the point that politics is becoming regionalized. In all of New England, the GOP has but a single House seat (Chris Shays in Connecticut) and they are hugely outnumbered in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland. The North is lost. So is the Pacific Coast, with Arnold being a bit of an anomaly (a Republican who acts like a liberal Democrat). Of course, the South is fairly strongly Republican, although with Democratic governors in Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Louisiana, the GOP has to at least pay attention.

No, the real battles are going to be fought in the Midwest and the Interior West, and these states, which have long been Republican, are trending Democratic, what with the governors of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, Kansas, and even Iowa all being Democrats. The problem is that westerners tend to be libertarians--keep the government off my ranch and out of my life--and Southern conservatism is strongly in favor of government interference in personal affairs (abortion, gay marriage, Terri Schiavo, etc.). A slogan like "Vote for me and I'll have the government legislate good morality" just doesn't cut it in the West. The Republican candidate has to have substantial appeal in the West in order to win. In that regard, the pro-choice, pro-gay Giuliani might not be such a bad choice and neither would McCain. Running a Southerner as the Republican nominee will absolutely clinch Alabama for sure, but it wasn't really in play to start with.

For the Democrats, the situation is quite different. Running liberals from the Northeast, say John Kerry or Hillary Clinton, makes Massachusetts a slam dunk, but that doesn't play as well everywhere. If the Democrats were to go for a Southern ticket, say John Edwards (NC) combined with Wesley Clark (AR) or Jim Webb (VA), all of a sudden Virginia, North Carolina, and Arkansas would be in play. It's an odd situation, but the Republicans need to avoid a Southerner and the Democrats might be advised to pick one. Karl Rove probably would agree with this analysis: Hit the other guy where he is strongest".

[MADem]

1. Some of that has merit--the GOP have become the "nannies" they always accused US of being

The only thing is, we were nannies about stuff like clean air and water, healthcare, safety nets for kids, the old, ill, abused and indigent--stuff that is actually affecting people's LIVES nowadays!!!

The GOP, though, likes to nanny ones reproductive organs, ones churchgoing habits and beliefs, ones ability to buy a beer on a Sunday...and these freedom-loving types have a PROBLEM with that, when they don't have so much of a problem with someone, anyone, trying to get a handle on say, lunatic government spending (a GOP bad habit nowadays) or out-of-control health care costs!

I think the candidate who can communicate this difference to those freethinkers in the midwest/west will be successful--and while region of origin might help a candidate, I don't think it's a deal-maker or breaker. I do think the message is going to rule in this election cycle, and I think it might be the first election in a long time where MESSAGE, not personality, takes center stage.

[papau]

2. This also works for the Dem side - if Obama holds the Midwest, Hillary the coasts, EdwardsRichardson

the south and Southwest respectively we will have an interesting primary season.

If Obama's hold on the MidWest does not materialize By Valentines day it is over.

Likewise as to Hillary's hold of the coasts not occuring - but that is less likely.

So the Midwest is key - at least in my opinion :-)

[Tellurian]

4. The midwest vote for a black president?

where the Texas rednecks live? You've got to be kidding.

[papau]

5. IN the 50's it was impossible - the Mayor of Waukegan was possible Pres Candidate for GOP because

he ordered his police to beat a hundred blacks in low income housing who dared to demonstrate.

Now Waukegan is majority Black/Hispanic - things change.

I see it as quite possible for Obama to carry the mid-west.

[Tellurian]

7. I agree, my bad..

I think of Texas as the mid-west and really, it is commonly known as south west.

Nevertheless, Texas people will not vote for a black president. As was made clear to me by several residents.

And in keeping with your assessment, I agree.

[illinoisprogressive]

3. Obama is from Illinois and his mom is from Kansas. Midwest, baby

and, he has a firm hold on chicago. But, all of Illinois is very Obama.
He has good support in the corn states.

[papau]

6. I agree :-)

:-)