The last two Presidential elections has brought to the forefront a stark, 21st century truth concerning Americans and their political preferences. That truth is that there is a vast geographical divide that pits the vast American heartland against the large metro areas of the coastline and the Great Lakes.
Looking at the geographical demographics from the last two elections, it is clear that those around the peripheral rim of the country, along with the Great Lakes region, prefer Democrats and tend to be more liberal. On the other hand, those everywhere else in the nation's vast heartland that includes the South, the Midwest (except for the Great Lakes shores), the 'Bread-Basket,' and the Rocky Mountain states tend to prefer conservatives and are more prone to vote for Republicans.
The 2008 Presidential election is shaping up to be a replay of the geographical showdowns that have occurred in the past two Presidential elections.
We see absolutely no reason to think that Boston, NYC, D.C., Baltimore, Miami, New Orleans, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, Chicago, or Buffalo will decide not to support Mrs. Clinton or B. Hussein Obama. These large cities and their surrounding areas are inhabited largely by people who prefer the nanny state and the watchful eye of Big Brother.
By the same token, there is no way that South Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Kansas, Texas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Indiana, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, and many others will vote for Mrs. Clinton or B. Hussein Obama. Either candidate is going to have big problems in the heartland.
And so, another geographical showdown is in the making. Americans are still greatly divided. And the ideological conflict that separates the heartland from the peripheral is only going to get worse.
The question will be, how many individual voters in that vast wasteland we call the metro-peripheral will jump ship and vote for the GOP candidate? The answer will boil down to how many within the liberals' paradise will affirm America's values, history, and Constitution rather than support Socialists who want to bring our Constitutional Republic to ruin so that a new order can be ushered in.
And yes, it really does boil down to nothing more than that.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Just as Ronald Reagan did, it is possible for someone to capture the hearts of the general population enough to have a massive victory. He did have one big advantage- he had California.
If a candidate can get one or more of the states that are almost guaranteed to vote one way to switch over, that can be enough to win the election. This is especially true for the bigger states. For instance, if Rudy (shudder) can get the NY vote, it would virtually impossible for a Democratic to win. You move ~10% of the electoral votes in a fairly close division from one side to the other and it's just too much to overcome. It goes from 50-50 to 60-40.
The Dems only chance of making it a fairly sure thing (whether they are running against Rudy or not) is to get a candidate or running mate that can swing Texas and/or Florida. While that state has traditionally gone Republican, it has gotten close enough in recent years there that it wouldn't be too terribly difficult to swing it around.
In fact, if the Republicans pick Rudy, the Dems would almost HAVE to run Hillary in the hopes of keeping NY in their column.
I really don't see ANY of the Dems wooing Texas or Florida with the slate of candidates they have...not even Billy Richardson, who has shown on several ocassions that he is about three cards shy of a full deck.
And I agree that it is possible fr a candidate to come through and capture the hearts and imaginations of the masses like Reagan. Let's not forget that Reagan was basically counted out by the media and lost several early primary states. Yet he won the nomination and went on to stomp Carter...
Maybe this can happen again, and i am hearing that Fred is that man with the way he has been coming on strong of late.
Post a Comment