Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
RED STATE, BLUE STATE...
It's worth noting, in light of this MSNBC post that asks whether Indiana could go blue this year, that of the remaining primary states, only two have voted for Democratic presidential candidate since the 1970s, Oregon and Kentucky. The rest haven't supported a Democrat since Lyndon Johnson, and, although North Carolina went for Jimmy Carter in '76, I think we can safely consider that an aberration (before that it was 1964 as well). Now it's true that voters are registering Democratic in record numbers in places like North Carolina, but this doesn't necessarily point to a red-blue shift in these states. Rather, it seems that Democrats, or Democatic-leaning voters are excited about their choice, and that means high turnout and registration. But the jury's still out on whether all these new potential Democratic votes will be enough to flip these states in the general election. Also read Holly Yeager's take from last week on the main site.
--Mori Dinauer
COMMENTS (7)
um, West Virginia (1988, 1992, 1996)?
Posted by: aretino | April 28, 2008 11:30 AM
Montana (1992) for that matter.
And West Virginia also went Democratic in 1976 and 1980.
Posted by: aretino | April 28, 2008 11:34 AM
There is only one state left that the Dems have to win in November, and that's Oregon.
Keep that in mind when you see this "all eyes on Indiana" stuff.
The reason we're watching Indiana is to see if Obama can pick off Clinton's very most loyal supporters. If he can, great. If he can't, Clinton will declare Obama's candidacy irrevocably flawed.
Posted by: Cicero55 | April 28, 2008 11:37 AM
Aretino is correct about West Virginia -- I overlooked it. Montana seems less a trend than an aberration, given that it went for Clinton in 1992, but not 1996, and before that the last time it voted Democratic was in 1964.
Posted by: Mori Dinauer | April 28, 2008 12:19 PM
Montana is also one of the few states Clinton certainly wouldn't have won without an enormous Perot vote.
Posted by: Brittain33 | April 28, 2008 2:17 PM
I know it has become an article of faith that Montana was a quirk caused by Perot, but it's not so. Dukakis came within 6 percent of Bush in Montana (and South Dakota) in 1988, despite losing nationally by over 7 percent.
Posted by: aretino | April 28, 2008 7:27 PM
YEAH BUT GORE AND KERRY LOST IT BY OVER 20 POINTS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE RACES, WHILE I THINK OBAMA WINS MONTANA WON'T TAKE HIM OVER THE TOP HE WON'T WIN THE STATE.
Posted by: mICHAEL | May 21, 2008 2:59 PM