Tag Archives: Mitt Romney

Carrying the Banner for the Three Types of Republicans

Over at The Next Right, my NMS colleague Jon Henke has a post tackling the daunting topic of “The Future of the Right” and identifies three different types of Republicans: Progressive Republicans, Goldwater Republicans and Bush Republicans.

Progressive Republicans (aka: Teddy Roosevelt Republicans) are “generally reliable on limited government, but willing to go off on Big Government crusades.” Goldwater Republicans “vote for limited government, individual liberty and strong defense; they may have various opinions on social issues, but they subsume those views to the goal at hand: limiting government.” Bush Republicans are “willing to accept Big Government, so long as the government does socially conservative things. (See: Mike Huckabee).”

If you look at the map, Huckabee won SEC County, or the region that Joel Kotkin has said produced “George Bush’s Sun Belt mafia”; John McCain won states with old-school progressive heritages like Wisconsin and Teddy Roosevelt’s New York and Mitt Romney took the states where Goldwater’s ethos of libertarianism are strongest like the West, Maine and Ted Kaczynski’s old haunting ground of Michigan.

Does this mean that Huckabee, McCain and Romney carry the banner for Bush Republicans, Progressive Republicans and Goldwater Republicans, respectively?

2008 Republican Primaries Electoral Map

Republican Primaries Electoral Map

Advertisements

Mapping Strategies: How Candidates Use Maps to Imply Electability

One of the most fascinating use of maps I’ve seen this election cycle was when Rudy Giuliani‘s camp constructed hypothetical Electoral College outcomes to push the narrative that he was the most electable candidate. They released four maps, with each one pairing one of the GOP candidates against Hillary Clinton, who in October 2007, when the maps were released, was considered the odds-on favorite for the Democratic nomination.

Of course Giuliani’s maps implied that he would start with the most Electoral College votes. The maps had him beginning with 210 votes to Clinton’s 18, with 310 up for grabs. Meanwhile, the maps suggested John McCain would begin with 178 to Clinton’s 190 and Mitt Romney would start with 159 to Clinton’s election-sealing 274. The McCain camp responded in kind, releasing its own map showing where the Arizona senator was stronger (and weaker for that matter) than Rudy against Hillary. (Maps 3 – 6)

With the once-jumbled Republican race decided, it’s now the Democrats’ turn to argue about electability. The Obama camp has been touting red state victories as examples that he would expand the electoral map. Meanwhile, Hillary surrogate Evan Bayh suggested March 23 that Clinton’s success in larger states means she’d be a stronger general election candidate and Hillary herself reiterated that sentiment this week, arguing that she would face McCain with more big state “anchors” in place.

With Obama and Clinton’s arguments in mind, University of Georgia doctoral candidate Josh Putnam decided to parse the polls and map out likely scenarios. Armed with the latest data from Real Clear Politics, Putnam drew up two Electoral College maps showing how each candidate fares against McCain in all 50 states. What did he find? “The results don’t really support Bayh (or Clinton).” According to Putnam:

“In the McCain-Clinton contest, the solid and leaning categories give McCain a 235-179 electoral college vote advantage with 124 electoral votes falling in “toss up” territory. If you allocate those states’ votes to the candidate with the leading average, McCain wins by a 90 electoral college vote margin, 314-224. To a large degree, the map looks similar to the map from 2004. The GOP gains Oregon, Washington, Michigan and Wisconsin while the Democrats take Ohio and Arkansas. These polls indicate that McCain would maintain Florida and Clinton would hold on to Pennsylvania. But even with Pennsylvania and Ohio in the Democratic column, Clinton loses the election.”

General Election: Clinton v. McCain (Josh Putnam)

Clinton v. McCain

I think it’s interesting that Clinton is running strong in the old Democratic states of Arkansas and West Virginia. She obviously has appeal here, but should we really think that come crunch time these states will lay-ups? It’s also fascinating that she likely has a hopeless coaltion west of the Mississippi.

When it comes to Obama vs. McCain, Putnam notes:

“The first impression is that there are far fewer solidly red or blue states and a lot more toss up states. Among those toss ups though are several typically ruby red states; both in the South and in the plains (South Carolina, Texas, North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska). Factoring in the toss ups, Obama has a 199-174 lead over McCain with 165 electoral votes to close to call. Again, if those electoral votes are allocated to the candidate leading in the average of post-Super Tuesday state polls, Obama claims victory by a 273-265 margin. That’s pretty close to the 2000 outcome. Of the red toss up states listed above, Obama manages a win in North Dakota.”

General Election: Obama v. McCain (Josh Putnam)

Obama v. McCain

I think Obama clearly puts more states in play by drawing independents in the Mountain West and mid-Atlantic, but I think his strength in Texas and Nebraska are probably just reflections of outlying polls. If you want to talk ruby-red states that Obama could make a run on, let’s talk Montana and North Carolina.

For the record, here are the Rudy and McCain campaign maps (all released in late October, 2007):

Rudy Map of General Election: Giuliani vs. Clinton

Giuliani vs. Clinton

Rudy Map of General Election: McCain vs. Clinton

McCain vs. Clinton

Rudy Map of General Election: Romney vs. Clinton

Romney vs. Clinton

Super Tuesday Maps

It’s been a busy week, but with the dust settled from Super Tuesday, we now have a clear picture of who won.

On the Democratic side, Barack Obama took 14 states to Hillary Clinton’s eight, although Hillary prevailed in more populous states like California and New York. The result was a near-tie: Hillary won 50.2 percent and Obama took 49.8 percent.

Hillary did the best on the coasts, but also won inland states like Tennessee, Oklahoma and Arizona. Her win in California, where the Clinton brand is strong, was perhaps the most impressive – the state was expected to be a nail-biter but she won by nearly 10 points.

Meanwhile, the Obama camp is touting victories in red states such as Missouri, Kansas, Utah and Idaho, as well as decisive wins in the deep southern states of Georgia and Alabama. His wins in Connecticut and New Mexico were also surprising.

Super Tuesday Democratic Electoral Map (New York Times)

 Super Tuesday Democratic Electoral Map

 

California Democratic Electoral Map (New York Times)

 California Democratic Electoral Map

Georgia Democratic Electoral Map (New York Times)

 Georgia Democratic Electoral Map

On the Republican side, it was John McCain’s day. He dominated big states like California and New York and won every state on the Metroliner Corridor besides Romney’s Massachusetts (although McCain did win Boston).

McCain also posted victories in crucial heartland states like Missouri and Illinois. McCain won Peoria County, Ill. thereby answering the question “Will it play in Peoria? But in Missouri, he lost Rush Limbaugh’s home county of Cape Girardeau. The Peoria and Cape Girardeau outcomes say a lot of McCain’s appeal: He’s accepted in the mainstream but has trouble in conservative bastions.

Mike Huckabee swept SEC country, from Fayetteville to Athens. Mitt Romney took the silver medal in the delegate count, and won the states he’s lived in along with a handful of Western states, but it wasn’t enough to keep him competitive.

Super Tuesday Republican Electoral Map (New York Times)

 Super Tuesday Republican Electoral Map

Missouri Republican Electoral Map (New York Times)

 Missouri Republican Electoral Map

 

McCain Won Boston

Mitt Romney said in his speech tonight that he’s proud “the three places I have lived have all voted for us — Michigan, Massachusetts and Utah.”

Well check this out: Suffolk County (whose county seat is Boston) choose John McCain 46-45% over Romney. Looks like no love is lost on Beacon Hill.

Massachusetts Republican Electoral Map (New York Times)

Massachusetts Republican Electoral Map

The Show-Me State Comes Through

Missouri takes its politics seriously. Not only has it picked the correct presidential candidate since 1900 (besides 1956), but tonight both the Democratic and Republican contests are too close to call. As all eyes focus on Missouri, the state can be proud that it has one of the best Secretary of State web sites in the union.

The maps below are screen grabs from the secretary’s site. Besides a bizarro color scheme, (GOP is blue and Dem is red??), it’s pretty impressive.

John McCain will probably edge out Mike Huckabee, but as you can Huck swept the countryside. Mitt Romney won the cities and suburbs.

Missouri Republican Electoral Map (Missouri Secretary of State)

Missouri Republican Electoral Map

Barack Obama win St. Louis and Kansas City, and Hillary Clinton wins everywhere in between.

Missouri Democratic Electoral Map (Missouri Secretary of State)

Missouri Democratic Electoral Map

Hillary’s Clinton Empire

Hillary Clinton wins the Empire State 57-39%, which is just about what I expectedBarack Obama did pretty well in the City; his best borough was Brooklyn where he got 48%, and his worst was Staten Island, where he won 36%.

In the key suburban counties, Hillary took 52% in Westchester and 62% in Nassau.  All around, it was an impressive and well-balanced Hillary rout.

New York Democratic Electoral Map

New York Democratic Electoral Map

I thought Mitt Romney might have a shot Upstate.  But John McCain swept every single county in New York.  Wow.

New York Republican Electoral Map

New York Republican Electoral Map

Mormon Backlash down South?

Via Jonathan Martin.

Romney is lagging far behind McCain and Huck in the rural counties.

But he’s winning the suburbs and exurbs around Nashville and Atlanta. Places like Forsyth Co (GA) and Williamson Co (TN).

Why the difference?

As anybody from these states can tell you, these areas are demographically different than everywhere else.

They’re conservative and reliably Republican, but they’re full of transients (“come-heres”) who tend to hail from the northeast and midwest.

And they’re not likely to have any hang-ups on such matters as Mitt’s faith.