Gallup poll, Kafornia dropped out of top 10 for Barry
Gee, Barry is not visiting the left coast often enuff. He should make a routine stop on his way to his Hawaii holiday spot:
January 30, 2013
In the U.S., Blue States Outnumber Red States, 20 to 12
Hawaii and Northeastern states among the most blue in 2012
by Lydia Saad
PRINCETON, NJ -- There were more solidly blue states than solidly red states in the U.S. in 2012, by a margin of 20 to 12. After the District of Columbia, the most Democratic-leaning states in 2012 were Hawaii, Maryland, Rhode Island, New York, and Massachusetts -- where Democrats held at least 20-percentage-point advantages in party identification. Republicans enjoyed this lopsided an advantage in Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho.
Connecticut, Vermont, Illinois, and Delaware round out the top 10 most Democratic states. Thus, eight of the top 10 are located in the East.
The top 10 Republican states have a very different geographic profile, with three of the states located in the Midwest (North Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas), two in the South (Alabama and Oklahoma), and five in the West. The full results by state appear on page 2.
Uncle, it's interesting to consider how those very blue states became that way. They haven't really changed that much since 100 or more years ago when most were strictly Republican states, who supported the likes of Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt. They were the progressive party then, which supported technical and scientific study and advancement, and equal rights for all, at least as they understood it then. Not much has changed in those states, as they still support essentially the same things; It's the parties that have changed. The Republicans were then the socially and technically progressive leaders pushing us forward. Republicans have now become socially and technically conservative anchors, holding us back. The people have not changed much, but the parties have changed a lot.
Your point is well-taken. One of the most startling things about the recent election is how insulated from reality the leaders of the GOP turned out to be. From Romney on down, they expected to win the election--and not just win, but win decisively--in the face of readily available data that told a very different, and far more accurate, story. They were blinded by their ideology to the changes taking place in the country and, so far as I can tell, in spite of making noises about no longer being "the stupid party" as Bobby Jindal put it, they are just as blind now as they were before. When you look at what Republicans are actually doing in the states where they hold political power, it is as if the election never happened. That is troublesome not only for the people who have the misfortune to live in those states but for the Congress as well, where a majority of GOP representatives have more to fear from challenges within their own party for not being "conservative" enough than from loss of their seat to a Democrat. Faced with that reality, they not only have no incentive to compromise with the Democrats or the White House but, on the contrary, have good reason to become even more intransigently opposed to the agenda that the majority of the country voted for. They can hold on for a long while to those gerrymandered Congressional seats but they have no hope of winning a national election without making changes in policy that will offend their most ardent supporters. I have maintained for a long time that the country needs a viable conservative party to oppose the Democrats. But to be viable, such a party has to have an agenda that goes beyond cutting taxes and reversing Roe v. Wade. It has to recognize scientific and economic reality and promote an economic freedom agenda that will cause its big business supporters to choke on their foie gras. I mean things like enforcing the anti-trust laws, getting rid of tariffs and price supports that protect specific industries, embracing immigration reform, etc. It has to propose meaningful responses to the very real threat of climate change. If it doesn't like the hyper-bureaucratic health reform that we now have, it has to produce a market-based alternative rather than writing legislation that, for example, prohibits Medicare for negotiating with drug companies for lower drug prices. And so on.