Mathew Gross points me to the latest opus from Carville and Greenberg, who make the argument that the Dems key to a 2006 breakthrough is - let me finish! - the Perot vote:
His voters were the most anti-political and anti-elitist, anti-big government and big corporation, anti-free trade and anti-immigration. They were pro-military but anti-foreign entanglements. They were libertarian and secular, pro-gun and pro-choice...
A mixed bag there, with immigration perhaps the most problematic.
I was just thinking about Perot the other day, browsing through the used books at Goodwill and seeing several of his titles.
But let's take a look at the geography of this.
Perot's 1992 support was strongest in sagebrush, libertarian leaning country: Maine, Alaska, Utah, Idaho, and Kansas in that order (30.5% to 27%). His very strongest counties - he won a handful - were tiny and isolated, the most rural of the rural. This pattern holds on the county level and in my county even on the precinct level.
Perot also ran strong in the fastest growing areas, where voters are less rooted to local tradition. I'm thinking of Arizona and Nevada here.
He was weakest in the South - Mississippi, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Alabama - and in DC. The very worst Perot totals were in black majority areas where Clinton ran strongest.
Here's a map of Perot percentage by county (very small map, relatively large image file). Also note Perot's poor percentage in Hispanic south Texas in `92 (and New Mexico in `96).
My initial take is this points more to the western strategy than to retaking the long-lost South.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder