I wouldn't have phrased it exactly as "western libertarians," but the party needs the libertarian leaners, the fiscal but not so much social conservatives, the people who respect religion but won't be ruled by it, those of us who remember and believe in the Constitution and are capable of reading comprehension of same, or it won't stay in power or, as it appeared to be headed for doing, become all but unstoppable.

It's been a slap in the face to many of us, the antics pulled as if the religious conservatives were all that ever mattered, and thank you for electing us but the rest - the majority - of you can go screw now. It's insane.

To be just noticing? That was one long nap.

I suspect that we will see some potential defections from the west (e.g. New Mexico in 2000 though that was heavily influenced by a blizzard that drove done rural voting). But we are also likely to see some defections from the dem column in the Midwest (Wisconsin, Minnesota and to a lesser extent Michigan). The defections the dems are in danger of have more EV value than the GOP potential defections.

There is also an alternative view of California. Since 1916, California has gone democratic 11 times and republican 12 times. It just so happens that these switches match to the national popular vote every time but thrice.

1960 when they went for native son Nixon by 0.55% compared to the national vote for Kennedy of 0.16%.

1976 when they went for Ford by 1.78% compared to the national vote for Carter of 2.06% and

2004 when they went for Kerry by 9.95% compared to the national vote margin of 2.46% for Bush.

Now that's not as good as Missouri always going with the national popular vote winner every year except 2000 (when they went for the EV winner) and 1956 when they decided they didn't like Ike after all.

Based on that history, California would seem more persuadable than I think it really is.

I do think several of the Western states are trending Democrat for reasons aside from libertarian ideology--notably the Hispanic population growth and the fact that parts are becoming essentially suburbs of California because of housing prices. Still, they have a way to go.

Still, the GOP had a "lock" on California as recently as 16 years ago.

Look at the 2004 election results. The eight states he cited (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming) averaged a better than 20 point spread in favor of Bush. Some of those (New Mexico 0.79%, Nevada 2.59% and Colorado 4.67%) are certainly in potential play (any state with a less than 5% margin would have to be at least considered for being in play). But the other states have a long way to go to be in play (Utah 45.54%, Wyoming 39.79%, Idaho 38.12%, Montana 20.50%, Arizona 10.47%).

Compare that to the south (Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana), which only averaged 15.2%. Admittedly only Florida was anywhere close with 5.01% margin, but if you say that the south is solid for the GOP, then the west is 5% more solid for the GOP in 2004.

The best argument here is that 3 of the 5 states with a closer than 5% margin for Bush were in the west. The other two were in the Midwest (Iowa 0.67% and Ohio 2.11%). The three western states in play can be explained more by the immigration into the states and changing demographics rather than some schism with the GOP.

Contrast that with 6 states having a closer than 5% margin that went for Kerry. 3 in the Midwest (Wisconsin 0.38%, Michigan 3.42% and Minnesota 3.48%). Two in the northeast (New Hampshire 1.37% and Pennsylvania 2.50%). One in the Pacific coast (Oregon 4.16%).

The GOP had four states with a 5 to 10% margin, all in the south except Missouri at 7.20%. The democrats had six states with a 5 to 10% margin, three in the north east and three in the pacific coast (including Hawaii).

So the great shift he sees is from the mountain west states with the highest average vote margin for Bush (20.3%), away from the old south (15.2%) and towards the pacific coast three states which averaged 7.1% for Kerry. Sorry, I don't buy.

If you want to look towards trends, the GOP has 46 EV won with margins less than 5% and 57 EV won with margins between 5 and 10%. The democrats have 68 EV from states won with less than 5% and 92 EV from state won with 5 to 10% margins.

Libertarians are not true conservatives, and in the end will cost the GOP far more than it could ever gain.

Libertarians are no friends of true conservatives. One needs only look at the pages here on OTB and watch while libertarians constantly shill for big oil, big energy, big pharma, and beat the drum for divorcing social issues from any moral framework.

Libertarians constantly try to attach themselves to conservatism and Republicans because their desperate for legitimacy and they understand that the left can't offer much in that arena.

Conservatives and Republicans in general would do well to speak to their base, hold their moral high-ground and ignore the tin-foil hat wearing libertarians who are trying to convince them that repealing marijuana laws and allowing corporatism to run rough-shod all over the American people will win them the next election.

There is NO way to reconcile authentic conservatism with social(ist) utopianism. Period.

Mac
http://www.brownsludge.com