This month, Univision commissioned what may be the most in depth survey of Hispanic political opinion ever.  Conducted by Republican pollsters The Tarrance Group and Democratic firm The Mellman Group, the survey asked 1500 likely Latino voters an extensive series of questions about their political beliefs and media consumption.  There are also 300 respondent subgroups for California, Texas, Florida, and the Southwest (Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico).  Because Hispanics nationally are about 9-10% of the electorate, a standard national opinion poll will have under 100 Hispanic respondents.  With such a small pool of respondents, the margin of error for Hispanic data is very high.  With this survey, we now have the chance to go deeper and truly examine the Hispanic population on a large variety of questions.

In this segment, I want to examine the survey’s modeling of the Hispanic electorate.  For all the attention the political community has paid to Hispanic voters, there has been few attempts to determine which parts of the Latino community are loyal to either party, and more importantly, which characteristics are associated with such voters.  The Univision survey broke respondents down into five segments: Democratic base, Democratic sympathizers, Swing, Republican sympathizers, and Republican base.  For these segments, I will provide the proportion of Hispanic voters which belong to the grouping, the breakdown of ideology for respondents (liberal, moderate, and conservative), a few of the characteristics for each group, and a fictional representative member of this voting segment.

Democratic base: 38% of electorate, 53% liberal, 20% moderate, 27% conservative

More likely to be in Northeast, union member, non-religious, 60+ years old, not married

Sample voter: Gloria, 62 yrs old, Bronx, NY

Gloria was a young girl when she and her family migrated to New York from Puerto Rico.  She is widowed and has two adult children.   She worked a variety of service jobs in her life, rising to be a team manager for her company.  She is involved in her union, which is a SEIU local.  Except for wedding and funerals, she hasn’t gone to church since she was a teenager.  Her first political inspiration was John F. Kennedy and has been a loyal and active Democrat for her entire adult lifetime.

Democratic sympathizers: 24% of electorate, 36% liberal, 26% moderate, 38% conservative

More likely to be in their 30s, 1^st generation, young women, under $35k, unemployed, and from California

Sample voter: Maria, 32 years old, Los Angeles, CA

Maria was born in Mexico, coming to America as a teenager.  She became a citizen five years ago.  She is a mother with two young children.  To support her family, she works as a maid.   She tries to make it to church when she can, but she often misses because she is working.  She voted for both Obama and Jerry Brown.  Virtually all of her neighbors are Democrats, and that’s how she typically casts her ballot.

Swing: 16% of electorate, 29% liberal, 23% moderate, 48% conservative

More likely to be young men, from Texas, under 30 years old, under 50 years old, non college graduate, goes to church a few times a month

Sample voter: Adrian, 24 yrs old, San Antonio, TX

Adrian is a 1^st generation Mexican-American.  After getting some work experience in the construction industry, he has found a job in the Public Works department for the San Antonio city government.  He will sometimes go to church when his mother badgers him into going. While not particularly into politics, he is proud to be the first in his family to vote and cast his first presidential ballot for Barack Obama in 2008.  However, in 2010, he voted for Rick Perry for governor.

GOP sympathizers: 12% of electorate, 19% liberal, 16% moderate, 65% conservative

More likely to be Protestants, gun owners, from Florida, under 30, home owners, some college

Sample voter: Miguel, 29 years old, Orlando, FL,

Miguel is a 2^nd generation American.  He is of mixed Cuban-Puerto Rican heritage.  He went to a local community college, where he focused on computer sciences.  He has an IT job, and wants to go back to school to get his degree soon.  He is a gun owner, and he and some of his friends enjoy going to the shooting range.  After being indifferent to religion most of his life, he joined a Pentecostal church three years ago.  He met his fiancée at church and is in the process of looking for a house for them.  His father is a Republican and his mother is a Democrat.  He has cast most of his votes for Republican candidates.  He voted for John McCain in 2008 and for Marco Rubio in 2010.  He may vote for a Democrat on occasion, like when he voted for Bill Graham in 2006.

GOP base: 9% of electorate, 9% liberal, 6% moderate, 85% conservative

More likely to be Protestants, gun owners, college graduates, above $75k, in their 50s, male, weekly church attenders.

Sample voter: Ricardo, 56 years old, Westchester, FL

Ricardo left Cuba when he was five years old.  He grew up in Little Havana, and attended Florida International University where he studied business.  After 30 years of experience, he is a bank executive who works in Downtown Miami.  He is particularly proud that two of his children are recent graduates from the University of Miami.  He and his wife go to church every week and are involved in their parish.  He cast first presidential vote for Reagan in 1980, and has voted straight ticket Republican ever since.  He was an early donor to Marco Rubio’s Senate campaign.

What is interesting about these fictional voters is how similar they are to those of all races and backgrounds with their characteristics.  Union members in New York who never go to church are Democrats, period.  Upper middle class bankers who go to church every week are Republicans, regardless if your heritage is Latino or WASP.   If Hispanics are more Democratic, that’s because more Hispanics are currently in a position to be Democrats.

Next time, I will look at what issues Latino voters care about.

In the first installment of this analysis, I went through the competitive states that are Republican leaning.  If Republicans were able to hold all of those states, then their candidate would reach 270 electoral votes precisely.  But considering that few things in life are that simple, Republicans have to target many more states.  In this part, I look at the states that are genuinely in the middle of the political balance and states that lean somewhat Democratic.  These also will be competitive states in 2012.

50/50 states: These are the states that track almost exactly with the national popular vote.  They can swing by a larger margin than the candidate’s victory, but whoever wins in 2012 will likely have these three states in their corner.

Iowa: In 2004, Bush won Iowa by a hair, running about one point behind his national popular vote average.  In 2008, Obama ran one point ahead of his national popular vote average.  Based on all this, you would conclude that Iowa is a point more Democratic than the national average.  However, events since 2008 have swung the state to the right.  On the statewide level, Charles Grassley waltzed to reelection, while Terry Branstad won the Governor’s race by nearly twenty points.  There has been a Democratic Party identification decline of nine points, one of the highest totals in the country.  There has also been a major turnaround in party registration, as a strong Democratic registration advantage has almost disappeared.  This is a state that is as close to being in the middle as there is in America.

Colorado: You could make a persuasive case that Colorado is a few years behind Virginia’s political arc.  They are both formerly solid Republican states that voted for Bob Dole.  They gave increasingly narrow margins to Bush from 2000 to 2004.  A new breed of relatively moderate, business-friendly Democrats came to power.  An influx of immigrants changed the demography of their states.  The state Republican Party is mismanaged and poor candidates challenge a new iteration of Democrats.  Political observers start calling it a purple, or even a blue state, and it is held up as an example of a growing progressive movement.  This arc ran in Virginia from 2001 to 2009, before this narrative was smashed by the transformative Bob McDonnell campaign.  The arc in Colorado began in roughly 2004-2005, and has yet to end, but 2012 may be just about when it runs out of gas.

Nevada: There are many similarities between Nevada and Colorado’s political cultures.  They have generally moved in tandem in recent years.  Nevada was also a disappointing state for Republicans in 2010.  It is also frequently mentioned as a state that is trending Democrat because of changing demographics.  The Reid/Angle Senate race received extensive national attention, but the other major statewide race that year saw Republican Brian Sandoval easily defeat Harry Reid’s son for the Governorship.  The split decision in 2010 is representative of Nevada’s swing state status.  Its Two-Party Congressional vote was almost exactly a mirror of the House popular vote.  Obama has also been below average here in the polls.  It could be likened to a smaller scale Colorado.

Democrat leaning swing states: These are four states that Obama won rather easily in 2008, but all elected Republican Governors and Senators in 2010.  These states are instinctively viewed as blue states, but in some cases, they may be only a point or two more Democratic than average.

Wisconsin: No state has given us more relevant political data in 2011.  The Supreme Court election between David Prosser and Joanne Kloppenburg and the whole recall process demonstrated a state that is sharply divided, and just about 50/50 overall.  Republicans were able to squeak out narrow victories in both rounds of the fight over Governor Walker’s Budget Repair Bill.  The most accurate way to characterize the state is still Democratic leaning swing state because of the high level of popularity that Obama enjoyed in 2008 (Winning the Wisconsin Primary was a key landmark in his primary victory and he got a higher percentage of the general election vote here than in Minnesota) and Obama is still three points above his national approval rating average.  Labeling it Democratic leaning only means it is more Democratic than the national average.  Even a slight Republican national advantage would tip it red.

Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania has not voted for a Republican presidential candidate since 1988.  In spite of this, it has always been targeted by Republicans.  Bush tried very hard twice to win the state.  McCain’s whole electoral strategy for the last two weeks of his campaign was based on winning Pennsylvania.  Republicans have lost it close, like in 2004 when Bush came 2.5 points short of victory; and large, like 2008 when McCain lost by 10 points.  Obama has been hugely unpopular in Western Pennsylvania since the beginning (McCain ran at or better than Bush 2004 numbers in metro Pittsburgh) and the key Philadelphia suburbs voted out two Democratic incumbents in favor of Republicans in 2010.  Pennsylvania has moved slightly to the right relative to the rest of the nation, and is only about a point more Democratic than the national average now.

Michigan: Michigan is one of the harder states to get a feel for because there has been one of the most volatile states in the past decade.  In 2006, Democrats had a roughly 20 point statewide sweep.  In 2010, Republicans won the Governor position by a nearly 20 point margin.  Obama received a very strong 57 percent here in 2008.  In 2010, the Two-Party vote was one point more Republican than an already strong Republican showing.  Right now, Michigan is about two points more Democratic than the rest of the country, which lines up with Obama’s relative approval ratings.

New Mexico: New Mexico was a state that Bush won narrowly in 2004, but then moved solidly into the Democratic column.  After 2008, Democrats controlled the Governorship, both Senate seats, and all three House seats.  In 2010, there was some pushback against this monopoly.  Susana Martinez was elected governor and Republicans won a House seat.  However, even in a very good Republican year like 2010, Republicans couldn’t win the Two-Party congressional vote.  This does lead to the conclusion that New Mexico is at least a few points more Democratic than the rest of the nation.  It would likely take a Republican to get a popular vote total of around 53 percent to claim victory in the Land of Enchantment.

In case of blowout: There are five states that could be in play in case of a sizable GOP victory.  These states would require a Republican to win roughly 55-56 percent of the vote, a better percentage than George H.W. Bush won in 1988.  Minnesota is the most winnable of these states for Republicans.  Bush and McCain tried hard to turn it red, but it still has an overall Democratic lean.  While not nearly as Democratic as it once was, it would require a Republican to get 54-55 percent there to win.

New Jersey is a state that whose state political dynamics have moved towards the right since 2008.  Chris Christie’s victory is the most vivid expression of this, but a series of Congressional wins and a large Democratic Party identification decline mean that a Republican would need about 55 percent nationally to win here, which is somewhat less than would have been required in the past decade.  Maine is also a beneficiary of a noticeable Republican trend in the Northeast.  There has been much greater success on the state level, where Republicans control all the levers of power, than on a national level, as both Democratic members of Congress survived credible but not dangerous challenges in 2010.  It would require about 56 percent nationwide to flip the entirety of the state.

The Pacific Northwest has two states that are on the edge of being swing states, but have fallen away from Republicans in the past decade or two.  Oregon is about one or two points more favorable to Republicans than Washington, but they have similar political cultures.  The Pacific Northwest has been relatively content with the Age of Obama.  There was no wave of discontent in these states in 2010.  The big cities, and even increasingly the suburbs, are now super-Democratic, and the rest of their states can’t overcome these strong margins.  It would take around 57 percent nationally to win over Washington.

After going through the close, contested states in the past three segments, I now want to use the data in those installments to determine which are going to be the most important states in 2012.  Some of the states in past postings will not determine who the next President will be.  Of the 19 states that I went over, 12 should be true swing states that could be won by either President Obama or his Republican opponent.  Two states profiled should be solidly Republican, and five others should stay in the Obama column.

I have grouped the states into a few tiers.  It is likely that all the states in each tier would be won by the same candidate.  The states are listed in order, starting with the safest Republican state and ending with the most secure Democratic state.  The baseline Republican Electoral College total without any states below would be 170, exactly 100 short of the 270 electoral votes required for victory.

Almost Certain GOP states: These are the two states that are almost certainly in the Republican column in 2012.  Obama would need to outdo his 2008 performance to win these.

Indiana: Obama’s shock victory here looks to be a one time fluke, partly based on Chicago’s proximity to the state, and McCain’s opposition to farm subsidies led to 15-20 point Republican declines in some northern farm counties.  Last year’s midterms were a return to the typical Republican proclivities of the state.  Obama still will run better than a typical Democrat in a state next door to his, but Indiana won’t be competitive unless the election is already over before Election Day.

Missouri: This is the only state on this list that John McCain won.  There is no reason to think it will flip in 2012.  If anything, Missouri has trended to the right in the intervening three years.  Roy Blunt, from the state’s top Republican family, easily beat Robin Carnahan, of the state’s top Democratic family.  Every House member outside St. Louis and Kansas City is likely to be a Republican after redistricting.  Missouri is on the verge of falling out of swing state status.

Both of these states would only need a national Republican popular vote percentage of about 45 percent to be won by the GOP nominee.  Even McCain received 46.5% of the two-party vote.  These states shouldn’t be hard for whoever the Republican candidate will be to win.  Adding these states to the Republican nominee would get the electoral vote total to 191.

Mandatory GOP States: The next four states are the beginning of the twelve true swing states.  For a Republican to win, they will almost assuredly need all four of these states.

New Hampshire: Are you surprised that New Hampshire is this early in the order?  You’re not wrong for thinking so.  Even in 2004, Bush couldn’t win New Hampshire.  There are seven states below it that Bush was able to win.  What puts it this high is that it has swung hard to the right in the age of Obama.  It may be easier for a small state to move so quickly.  Accordingly, only Rhode Island had a greater decline in Democratic Party identification since early 2009.  Obama has been markedly more unpopular here than even the overall Democratic Party brand.  Obama’s approval ratings average in the first half of 2011 are at the same level as Texas and Tennessee.  Republicans won back both House seats against incumbent Democrats and won an open Senate race by nearly twenty points.  At this rate, a Republican would only need approximately 46 percent nationally to win here.

North Carolina: The first in a series of South Atlantic states, North Carolina was also a surprise Obama victory in 2008.  His one point victory in a previously strong Republican state was the textbook example of how Obama was able to expand the electorate by generating record turnout and margins from minorities and young people.  No Democrat could have won North Carolina without Obama’s passionate connection to the large black and university communities in the state.  Without “surge voting”, the state reverted to its pre-2008 political layout in 2010.  While it is somewhat more Democratic than it was a decade ago, it will require a repeat of 2008 for Obama to win it next year.

Virginia: Obama’s 2008 victory in the Old Dominion was the culmination of a standout decade for Virginia Democrats.  It was also the high tide of that trend, and ever since Election Day 2008, Democrats in Virginia have suffered numerous defeats from the local level all the way to the Governor’s House.  While it is unlikely that Republicans will be able to repeat the smashing victories they won in 2009, a more modest win on the scale of the 2010 two-party Congressional vote, where Republicans ran three points ahead of a strong national Republican showing would still dramatically hurt Obama’s reelection prospects.

Florida: Florida might be the archetypical swing state in the general public’s imagination.  It remains the largest seriously contested state at the presidential level.  But it has not been in the center of the national political balance since 2000.  Bush had a somewhat under-the-radar relatively large victory in 2004.  Even in 2008, Obama couldn’t do better than 51 percent—and that was aided by a housing bubble that hit Florida particularly hard.  Republicans had about the best election cycle imaginable in 2010, winning every statewide election, and an astounding 62 percent of the two-party Congressional vote.  Republicans should not expect that dominant of a showing in 2012.  But a state that narrowly went for Obama has distanced itself from its 2008 vote.

If Republicans were to win all four of these states, which are a virtual requirement for victory, they would have 252 electoral votes, only 18 short of victory.  It would only require a Republican national popular vote percentage of roughly 46-47% to win these states.  Due to the dynamics of the next few states below, Obama almost certainly has to win one of the three South Atlantic states.  Losing Florida would particularly be a heavy blow to his reelection hopes.

The Deciding State: The value of New Hampshire’s shift to the right can be observed here.  This is because the state that would get Republicans to 270 electoral votes would be…

Ohio: This has been the lynchpin of Republican electoral strategy for years.  A Republican has never been elected President without winning Ohio.  There is every reason to believe this is true for 2012 as well.  By almost every measure available, Ohio is two points more Republican than the national average.  Obama won 51 percent here in 2008, two points behind the 53 percent he earned nationally.  The two-party Congressional vote in 2010 was 56-44 Republican, precisely two points more Republican than the national average.  Gallup’s average approval rating for Obama for the first half of 2011 has Ohio two points below the national average.  Consequentially, we would expect it to flip to the Republican candidate if they were to earn 48 percent of the national popular vote.

New Hampshire becoming a Republican leaning swing state is so valuable, because adding it to the list of states above puts a Republican 18 electoral votes short of victory.  Guess how many electoral votes Ohio has?  Eighteen exactly.  Thanks to the effects of reapportionment and the shift in New Hampshire, a Republican can win without any further states.  Of course, this provides no margin of error, so a comprehensive Republican strategy will contest the states immediately below Ohio as if they are the determining states.  This is also why Obama needs to pick off a South Atlantic state.

Next time, I will go through the states that are truly in the middle, and the states where a successful Republican could put in play.

Statewide Political Shifts: Part Three

Generally, the western states were a source of Republican strength in the 20^th Century.  A shift that began even while FDR was still in the White House drove the Rocky Mountain states to become among the most reliably Republican states in the country.  The Pacific coast states were swing states, and California, the biggest electoral prize of all, produced two presidents.  In recent times, the picture has become more complicated.  Some Mountain states, like Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming are among the most Republican states in the nation.  California has become the flagship Democratic state.  The Pacific Northwest has trended left.  And some Mountain states are now some of the hottest contested states every election cycle.

To figure out the most competitive states in the West in 2012, I will continue to look at the 2008 Presidential vote, the Congressional two-party vote (removing all third parties) and relevant statewide races in 2010, comparing state level Obama approval ratings with his national average for the first six months of 2011 (measured by Gallup), and the decline in Democratic Party identification, also measured by Gallup.  The baseline for the poll is 47 percent approval, which is somewhat higher than Obama’s current approval ratings.

Looking at these states more in depth:

Colorado: In the past half decade, few states have been better breeding grounds of success for Democrats than Colorado.  A state that Bob Dole was able to carry, Colorado went from being a Republican leaning swing state to giving strong backing to Democrats in 2006 and 2008.  Obama did well here, and added it to his list of Bush 2004 pickups.  Colorado had perhaps the most disappointing showing for Republicans in 2010.  A disastrous Republican Governor primary was marred by the leading contender being a plagiarist and the fringe nominee being so out of his depth that Tom Tancredo got 37 percent on a third party bid.  This weighed down Republicans in the Senate race, which Democrats won by two points.  In spite of this mismanagement, Republican won the two-party Congressional vote by five points.  With some better luck, it could have been a good Republican year here also.  Obama is running three points behind his national approval rating.  Colorado is shaping up to be a hotly contested state, but it is not as Democratic as its current representation would indicate.

Nevada: Nevada is another traditional Republican state that has trended Democratic in the past half decade.  Bush was able to win the state in both 2000 and 2004.  As in other Mountain West states, Obama showed strength, receiving 55 percent here.  2010 was a mixed bag for both parties.  Republican Brian Sandoval won the Governorship over Harry Reid’s son rather easily.  Republicans regained the suburban Las Vegas seat they lost in 2008 and won the two-party Congressional vote 53-47.  But the most memorable Nevada election in 2010 was the US Senate race, where a vulnerable Harry Reid was able to hold off Sharron Angle.  Considering the results in the other races, there is good reason to think a different Republican would have won.  Like Colorado, Obama is running three points behind his national approval average here.  The Democratic Party ID decline is 5 points, somewhat less than the national average, however.  Nevada and Colorado seem like a package deal.  It seems likely that either Obama or his Republican opponent will win both or lose both.

New Mexico: On a broad level, New Mexico is a bellwether state.  It was one of a few states that voted for George W. Bush once; he barely lost in 2000 and barely won in 2004.  While its overall partisan balance is close to the national average, its hard to say New Mexico is typical of anywhere.  It has one of the largest American Indian populations.  It is the most Hispanic state in America, but most are long settled in America, some with families who arrived before the signing of the Declaration of Independence.  2008 was a complete Democratic sweep.  Besides an easy Obama victory, Democrats came out of the election controlling the Governorship, both Senate seats, and all three House seats.  This monopoly was broken in 2010.  Republicans won back the Governorship and a House seat.  This was not as substantial a victory as Republicans experienced in other states; Democrats still won the two-party Congressional vote by three points.  Obama is one point more unpopular here than his national average, but the Democratic decline is only three points, one of the smallest declines in the nation.  It could very well be the case that Obama is of a magnitude more unpopular than the Democratic Party itself.

Oregon: George W. Bush came within four points of winning Oregon in 2004.  Since then, little has gone right for Republicans.  Gordon Smith lost his Senate seat in 2006, and Obama won 57% of the vote in 2008.  Some states in 2010, like Wisconsin and Michigan, reversed years of Democratic domination.  That didn’t happen in Oregon.  Republicans failed to pick up a single House seat.  An appealing Governor candidate, former Portland Trail Blazer Chris Dudley, was neck and neck in the polls, but failed to win.  Democrats still won the two-party Congressional vote by five points.  It is almost as if the political environment in Oregon didn’t change from 2008.  The Republican wave so apparent across the country petered out by the time it hit the Pacific.  While Obama is running slightly behind his national average here, the Democratic Party decline is on the lower side.  Oregon relative to the rest of the nation has shifted more Democratic in the past decade, and would now be harder to win for a Republican than many large industrial Midwestern states.

Washington: There have been a series of very, very close statewide elections in the past decade that Democrats have pulled out in recounts.  In 2004, the Governor contest between Christine Gregoire and Dino Rossi had a razor thin margin.  Rossi’s supporters accused Gregoire’s campaign of vote fraud after she went ahead of Rossi in the recount.  In 2008, a rematch between Gregoire and Rossi also was closely decided, but Gregoire won with a slightly larger margin this time.  After a major Democratic victory across the board in 2008, Rossi thought the third time would be the charm, this time challenging Senator Patty Murray.  Once again, Rossi came up short, this time by five points.  Republicans did win one formerly Democratic House seat, but the two-party Congressional vote was a 53-47 Democratic win.  Obama is three points more popular here than the national average, and the Democratic decline of 5.6 points is relatively small, though more than neighboring Oregon.  Obama has been more successful at bringing the Pacific Northwest into his coalition than nearly any other region of the country.  It will be very tough for a Republican to win Washington in 2012.

Colorado and Nevada are true swing states that will likely mirror the national popular vote.  New Mexico is likely two or three points more Democratic than the national average, though definitely still in play.  And the Pacific Northwest states are more Democratic relative to the rest of the country than they’ve ever been.  It would take a double digit Republican victory to win them over.

The most important region in American politics is the Midwest.  It is a region comprised of medium to large states that are generally competitive for both parties.  The competitive states of the Midwest have 81 electoral votes, roughly 20 percent of the entire electorate, and among the most volatile.  For the examination of future political trends, I will continue to look at the 2008 Presidential vote, the Congressional two-party vote (removing all third parties) and relevant statewide races in 2010, comparing state level Obama approval ratings with his national average for the first six months of 2011 (measured by Gallup), and the decline in Democratic Party identification, also measured by Gallup.  It should be pointed out that the national baseline for that Gallup approval ratings poll is 47 percent, and at the moment Obama is significantly under 47 percent in Gallup surveys.

Looking at these states more in depth:

Indiana: Indiana was Obama’s most shocking victory in 2008.  Indiana is a state that George W. Bush won by 20 points in 2004 and has long been the most Republican Midwest state.  In 2008, Obama ran over 20 points ahead of what John Kerry earned in 2004.  Its swing state status didn’t last long.  In 2010, Republican Dan Coats breezed his way to winning back his old Senate seat.  Republicans received 59 percent of the statewide two-party vote—roughly the same as Bush’s outsized 2004 triumph.  Obama is currently running five points behind his national average in approval polls.  There has been a seven point decline in Democratic Party identification, and this is among the states with the largest Republican registration advantages traditionally.  Obama’s approval rating would have to be well above 50 percent for Indiana to be in play again.  Absent a 1984-style economic boom, you can count Indiana in the Republican column again.

Iowa: Obama showed strength in Iowa before.  His victory in the 2008 caucuses legitimated his presidential bid.  He won the state, which George W. Bush won in 2004, by a strong margin.  Since then, things have not gone nearly as well for Democrats.  Senator Chuck Grassley had minimal opposition in his reelection campaign and Terry Branstad was elected governor by nearly twenty points.  The GOP won the two-party Congressional vote by 12 points (though failed to knock off any of the three Democratic incumbents).  Obama has been running two points ahead of his national average here, but the Democratic decline in the past two years has been precipitous.  Iowa is among the states closest to the political center of gravity.  It will be hard for either party to win without Iowa.

Michigan: In retrospect, the moment John McCain’s presidential hopes ended was the day when his campaign leaked that he was pulling out of Michigan.  McCain had previously shown appeal to this Democratic-leaning swing state, and the easy victory Obama won in the state was characteristic of his strong Midwestern performance in 2008.  But in the next two years, Democrats went from controlling every major facet of state government to losing the Governor’s race, both chambers of the state legislature, and two Congressional seats.  Republicans won 55 percent of the two-party Congressional vote, and Governor Rick Snyder did three points even better than that.  Obama has been three points ahead of his national approval rating here, though there has also been a six point Democratic decline in the past two years.  Michigan should remain a few points more Democratic than the national average, but a Democrat cannot win the White House without Michigan.  If Michigan is lost to Obama, his opponent can start measuring the Oval Office drapes.

Minnesota: Minnesota hasn’t voted for a Republican for president since 1972, the longest streak of any state.  Obama was able to win in 2008 without incident.  Election night 2010 produced a split result.  Democrats were able to flip the Governor position in a very good Republican year, but Republicans against expectations gained control of both houses of the state legislature for the first time in the modern era.  Republicans lost the two-party Congressional vote by one point and Obama has been five points ahead of his national approval rating.  Minnesota is the most Democratic of all the states listed here and the least likely to flip parties in 2012.  A Republican victory here would be indicative of a smashing national victory.  Republicans can easily defeat Obama without winning Minnesota, though it can be expected to be targeted by both sides.

Missouri: For years, Missouri was viewed as the ultimate bellwether state.  It had correctly picked the winner of the presidential election since 1904, except for one misstep in 1956.  That was broken in 2008 when McCain narrowly won Missouri.  2010 was a banner Republican year in Missouri.  In a matchup of two political dynasties, Roy Blunt easily defeated Robin Carnahan for the open Senate seat.  Republicans won a massive 61 percent of the two-party Congressional vote.  The already approved redistricting map will limit Democrats to one St. Louis and one Kansas City district, with a sea of red surrounding them.  Missouri seems to be drifting away from swing state status, and it is almost impossible to imagine the Republican nominee losing it in 2012.

Ohio: The centerpiece state for Republican presidential strategy fell to Obama in 2008.  Obama won 51 percent of the vote, not a large victory, but Ohio wasn’t a required state for getting to 270 electoral votes either.  After some difficult years, the state Republican Party rebounded strongly in 2010.  Republicans won the Governor and Senator races, both chambers of the legislature, and five House seats, leaving Democrats in a few seats adjoining Lake Erie.  Obama is running two points behind the national average and there has been an eight point decline in Democratic Party identification.  Obama is currently on the path to losing Ohio, and it would take a major economic course correction to win it.

Wisconsin:  Obama won the Democratic nomination in 2008 in a two week stretch of primaries and caucuses after Super Tuesday where his campaign was better organized than Hillary Clinton’s.  The most significant of these was the Wisconsin primary.  Obama made a strong connection with Wisconsin, and he received 56 percent of the vote, better than in typically more Democratic Minnesota.  Republicans had a dream year in 2010.  Republicans won the Governor seat; knocked off long time progressive champion Russ Feingold, flipped both houses of the state legislature, and knocked off two Democratic incumbent House members.  Then Wisconsin became the epicenter of 2011’s biggest political story, Governor Scott Walker’s efforts to limit the collective bargaining abilities of public sector unions.  A flurry of elections and tens of millions spent on both sides revealed a state that overall is deeply polarized and likely on balance 50/50.  Obama has been running three points ahead of his national average here, but the Democratic Party ID decline is 9.2 points, among the steepest in the nation.  Wisconsin is among the truest swing states at the moment and it seems likely that the winner in 2012 will carry Wisconsin.

Missouri and Indiana look definitively gone from Obama, Ohio is looking likely to go back towards the Republican nominee, Wisconsin and Iowa are among the truest of swing states, Michigan is a few notches more Democratic than average and more open to voting Republican than in the past, and Minnesota remains the most Democratic of the states and the most likely to stay Democratic.

Next time, I will look at the states in the West.

Smart Media Group has submitted a panel for South by Southwest 2012, arguably the largest interactive conference in the world and major wellspring of creative ideas for digital industries today.  Using the SXSW’s “Panel Picker” interface the public can vote on panels they would like to see accepted for the conference.  Please read our submission below and if you like it consider voting for it here: http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/ideas/view/11233

Each election cycle the online advertising and digital services industries see more and more money being spent by political campaigns on their services. By some estimates, $4.55 billion was spent on political advertising in the 2010 election cycle alone. This amount is widely predicted to increase during the 2012 elections cycle which could prove to be a windfall for businesses offering digital services.

One problem facing many digital firms and professionals is the question of how to navigate the turbulent waters of the political pitching process, where a meticulous client, often leery of outsiders can be a prohibitive barrier. The best solution is to offer political clients exactly what they need in language they can understand.

Our presentation is designed to educate a savvy audience of digital professionals who want to learn how to gain political business while avoiding missteps in this tricky field. Many top digital marketers, advertisers, and web-development gurus may not even realize the vast opportunities hidden in each election. We aim to reveal the opportunities, unseen pitfalls and strange stories of the digital political campaign.  Our panel will awnser the following questions:

1. How can digital professionals and entrepreneurs profit in the political arena?
2. What are the digital needs of political campaigns?
3. What are the best practices expected of digital professionals in this field?
4. What are the common challenges faced by digital consultants in political campaigns?
5. What opportunities can digital professionals expect in 2012?

Thanks for viewing our submission and hope to see you at SXSW!