The mathematics of the Electoral College may lead to irrational results in Presidential elections, but it – and demographics – should make it easier for the loyal opposition to regain the White House in 2004 – if they direct their resources accordingly.
And romancing strongly Libertarian areas like New Hampshire should be part of this strategy.
For the last three years, I’ve been saying that the fuss over election irregularities in Florida was a waste of time: if Al Gore had won either Arkansas or Tennessee, he’d have been elected. But in today’s New York Times, Ryan Lizza makes a more persuasive argument: forget the South: if Al Gore hadn’t lost New Hampshire, he’d be President.
Mr. Lizza (and others) have calculated that the Presidency will be won in the “swing states”. Experts don’t agree on which are up for grabs, but Mr. Lizza’s theory is that the Dems should focus on Ohio, Missouri, West Virginia, Arizona, Nevada and New Hampshire to win the necessary electoral votes. He reckons that to be 20.
As it turns out, half of these states – Arizona, Nevada and New Hampshire – make up a demographic region which strongly supports Libertarian and other third party candidates, according to CommonWealth’s intriguing study, “The 10 Regions of US Politics”.
The reaction to Howard Dean’s dumb remarks about Southern voters should be sending the message loud and clear: the former Confederacy is no longer a region of poorly educated, low-income underdogs, the traditional Democratic constituency. Rather, it’s close to the national average in household income and education, and much more Republican and Christian Conservative than the rest of the US.
So, forget about the Dixiecrats. The Dems need to romance people like me to take back the White House. We have our wish lists ready.
School vouchers, anyone?