<p>The source is cited. The media didn’t have to be “fed” anything - all they had to do was ask for it.</p>
<p>I think (but I always have a cracked crystal ball) that the Presidential election will be determined by the turnout of Hispanic voters in New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada and the margin of difference, and the general turnout in northern Virginia.</p>
<p>The media doesn’t do research. They publish talking point memos.</p>
<p>So, with that list of states, it appears that you are assumning Democratic losses in Florida and Ohio, once again?</p>
<p>You can check the source yourself.</p>
<p>“So, with that list of states, it appears that you are assumning Democratic losses in Florida and Ohio, once again?”</p>
<p>Democratic PRESIDENTIAL loss (big Democratic victories in both states overall). My map has it 302-236.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think it would take a collapse of massive proportions for the Democrats to blow this Presidential election. It’s almost inconceivable.</p>
<p>I think that’s true of the Dems generally speaking. But I honestly don’t know how the “race premium” computes in certain states, and the degree to which it is offset by Hispanic/Asian-American reversal of previous trend, and Hispanic/AA turnout. An increase in the race premium in the Presidential election would hardly constitute a Dem collapse.</p>
<p>Given the strength of the Democratic field this year, a loss for whatever reason would constitute a crash 'n burn of historic proportions.</p>
<p>DNC and the superdelegate party pooh-bahs who determined the nominee obviously felt confident enough about the Democratic tide to nominate a candidate that got clobbered in every large electoral college swing state.</p>
<p>Well, we disagree. All past history (granted, none of it national) shows that the ‘race premium’ is real, however much I wish it wasn’t, and hence the starting disadvantage real as well. The Republican collapse that we’ve already witnessed in the three interim Senatorial elections indicates that it may be offset, especially when coupled with new registration patterns. But it is certainly not a gimme.</p>
<p>Well, of course, choosing a flawed candidate is a Democratic Party tradition. That’s why they lose virtually every Presidential election. Nobody forced the DNC and the superdelegates to ignore the majority of the primary voters nationwide and especially in the large key electoral college states. That’s all part and parcel of why the Democratic Party is a failed party at the national level.</p>
<p>The Voting Rights Act of 1964 singly didn’t destroy the Democratic Party in the south. White southerners continued to elect “Yellow Dog” Democrats for years thereafter. Thad Cochrane and Trent Lott were the only two Republican deep south senators for years, well into the 1980s, while their state legislatures remained solidly Democrat, up until the redistricting in the 1980s. Remember, northern Republican Senators like Jake Javitz kept jostling with JFK to bring to bring voting rights to the fore. And it was several Republican federal judges (like the great and honorable Frank Johnson of Alabama, John Minor Wisdom, etc.) who ordered that civil rights legislation be enforced in the south. But sadly, as was said earlier in this post, those kind of Republicans largely don’t exist anymore.</p>
<p>It’s been rather sad to observe that once the dem party became the party of social programs and handouts, certain segments of society have gravitated toward that party - and, in the dems struggle to maintain power, they have successfully been able to master tha scare tactic of “Don’t vote for the other guys or you’ll lose your benefits”.</p>
<p>^^^ bz,Here is a perfect example of how values can differ among good people.
You may view certain social programs as “handouts,” while I might view these same social programs as necessary social safety nets for the benefit of our country as a whole. It is true that voting for one party or the other may make a big difference in which benefits get cut. Where one puts the resourses is a large part of the difference between the two parties. I wouldn’t call it scare tactics if it’s true.
Now scare tactics, to me, are, " Don’t vote for this guy because he’s a communist," (or muslim, or insert scariest false adjective.) Or don’t vote for this guy or he’ll put all his black friends in power. (I’ve actually heard this among Republican family members.) Or don’t vote for the Dems because they’re soft on terror. These are scare tactics.
We should expect our terror alerts to go crazy this election season again- yellow, orange, red- we should see it all, just like last time, speaking of scare tactics.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Only about 10 years longer. Jimmy Carter’s generation was the last of the rural/suburban Democrats in the South. By 1980, the exodus to the Republican Party was nearly complete. See Newt Gingrich.</p>
<p>You are correct. the Civil Rights Act was only part of the equation. The other part was school desegration – the impetus for mass exodus to the white suburbs, a migration that has left every city in the south ringed with Republican suburbs and exurbs, hastened by the explosive population growth in the region.</p>