I don't know about the other demographics but its generally agreed on in political circles that, by and large, Hispanics vote Dem more out of habit than out of being particularly progressive.
Both major parties have both pro- and anti- immigrant factions (as does the Hispanic community itself) which tends to undercut the perceived top issue for the Hispanic electorate. Gay marriage is also used (somewhat effectively) to wedge the black electorate which tends to be strongly anti- on the issue.
Hispanics also tend to be more religious (particularly Catholic) than other demographics and the GOP leveraged that (via the gay marriage & abortion issues) to get a higher than expected total from Hispanic voters in 2004, which ultimately gave NM to Bush. Most political strategists see (particularly third- and higher generation) Hispanics as a potential GOP demographic.
In my opinion this is possible *but* it would require the GOP to return to a more Goldwater style of conservatism rather than the current Neocon "fuck the electorate" model.
Its important to remember that the GOP doesn't need to win a majority of Hispanic or Black voters, they just need to wedge 5-10% of them into not voting.
...yes, Jim did say that. He's not alone certainly. For either party, the closeness of the voting patterns make each side optimistic, but it's particularly interesting watching R's excited about McCain here.
There's a lot of squishy logic regarding voting blocs here in NM. Dan touched on it well.
There seems to be a refusal of D's here to understand some of these dynamics. It's highly counter intuitive, and because of that a critical 5-10% goes unspoken for, left to their own decisions.
If I recall it, in 2000 Bush did near 35% of the Hispanic vote, near 10% of the AA bloc and (I think) near 25% of the gay vote.
There's a reason the McCain people have been quite explicit about going back to that 2000 pitch...starting here.
I would disagree a bit with Dan's last point. The problem is no one has to wedge anyone into not voting if they are that easy to roll.
Look what happened to Madrid v. Wilson. A phenomenal amount of registered D's just never showed up. It was the difference. Why? Who knows. We've all heard the theories about being dissatisfied with the candidate etc., but what does that do to the theory that issues like the war are "the thing" for Democrats above all else?
Is there any reason to expect anything different this cycle?
This is a funny place. The R's know it.
Yes, I expect it will be different due to two words: The Economy. In the last few years, believe it or not, many who voted for Bush and his pals have woken up to the fact that they are being gamed with wedge issues to get them to vote against their own economic interests.
What have Repubs done on the wedge issues they keep bringing up? Nothing significant.
I think McCain is a disaster waiting to happen. He's already shown his crabby, nasty side to reporters this cycle. Wait till he gets challenged in a live debate and the pressure jumps up an octave once the Dems have a nominee.
"Look what happened to Madrid v. Wilson. A phenomenal amount of registered D's just never showed up. It was the difference. Why?"
Patsy lost on the Absentee vote in Bernalillo County. If you look at the numbers, thousands were requested but not counted. Voting absentee is complicated; every step has to be done right for it to be counted. (Look how long it took to count the extra absentee ballots with problems.) The Dems encouraged many people to vote absentee who hadn't before. (Repubs are more used to this, and therefore more likely to follow through.)
Barb, I was thinking about that this morning as I was reading Mikaela's post calling us the Ho Hum generation. What does it take for the American public to really show its displeasure? To give one party the boot...at least for a little while? Torture? How about the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina? The loss of our privacy, the creation of a borderline police state? Well...sadly, it might only boil down to the bottom line of our middle class bank accounts.
I will be shocked if New Mexico goes McCain in November. Every sign points to a full Dem turnaround... especially given the preponderance of state races all trending Dem.
Michelle:
Strictly as a reminder (as if you don't know this!), here's the numbers from the SOS site for '06 CD1:
County Wilson Madrid
Bernalillo 94,081 95,311
Sandoval 3,835 3,999
Santa Fe 1,338 611
Torrance 3,287 2,114
Valencia 3,375 3,002
Totals 105,916 105,037
...now, that's NOT to get around your point on absentee, etc. We'll never know now what the real deal was, but the point is it just should not have been that close given the tenor of the times.
What hurt Madrid were the portions of Valencia, Torrance and Santa Fe counties that are in CD1. Registered D's outstrip R's by a wide margin. And the numbers for registered D's there vs. the amount that actually showed up was markedly upside down.
As you can see, the SF count alone really dinged her, considering an over 60% D registration there.
This is an extremely tricky district that way, war or no war. I'm afraid it is as Marjorie said: moolah.
All that said, back to statewide.
The make or break to me for me are those conservative D's in the southern part of the state.
Without having spoken to anyone on the R side (actually, Scott Darnell and I talked about it briefly before the show), my guess is this is where they think they can make some hay.
"Look what happened to Madrid v. Wilson. A phenomenal amount of registered D's just never showed up. It was the difference. Why?"
*stares at tv camera, doesn't answer*
Good point, LP. I think many Dems stayed home or changed their vote to Wilson after that debate. It's all anyone was talking about.
marjorie: The fact that issues like those you cite seem to make such little difference in the long run amazes me too. I can't imagine anyone, let alone any Dems, wanting to vote Repub after what has gone on in almost every area of the government under Bush and his pals.
But money does talk. As a couple friends of mine always say, it just hasn't gotten bad enough economically for many people, who think they are somehow immune to the damages wrought economically by Repubs.
New voters and independents should also have a powerful impact. If Obama wins, those will be voting Dem in droves and I expect he'll have generous coat tails.
Let's face it, Madrid was a very weak candidate in many ways and it wasn't a prez election year.
It really is unfortunate that Madrid turned out to be such a bad debater. Its pretty inexcusable for *any* lawyer to be completely dumbstruck by a simple debate challenge like that, let alone someone who's theoretically the top attorney in the state (Patsy was the outgoing Attorney General.)
To be completely honest that she turned out to be so bad at thinking on her feet (the stock in trade of her profession) caused me to lose quite a bit of faith in the state Democratic Party.
..."stares at tv camera, doesn't answer." Who will ever forget the moment. I was at a debate party at the Carom Club thrown by the film union. The room went dead at that moment. Unforgettable.
There's a point ya'll are making in all this; how is that D's are so easily turned off?
How is it even possible that just a bad debate performance can make anyone for any reason just say screw it, vs. holding ones nose and just doing it, given the stakes?
That's the challenge this year and why McCain poses such a threat. I get the feeling D's here have a reputation of sorts nationally...especially with R's. Otherwise, given the registration numbers they wouldn't even make the effort.
BTW, it's also the challenge for Heinrich if he's going to win CD1. He has GOT to clean up in those other counties where Darren White's history as a law enforcer means nothing.
I forget that moment every day...
Still, I have to throw in a couple of points:
1) When over 210,000 are cast and the margin of defeat is less than 1000 votes, saying any one thing was the difference is ridiculous. The debate is just the most obvious, but i could name 5 other things that easily account for 1000 votes one way or the other.
2) Gene's right about the reputation NM Dems have....certain places in America have consistant divergences between party affiliation and voting record, and New Mexico is one of them, and has been for the last 4 cycles. You'd be hard pressed to find another big city district in America as conflicted as CD-1. Nobody splits a ballot like New Mexico...
3) Turnout in '06 was huge. It essentially equaled 2000 (to within 1%), and was 22% bigger than '02. If you had asked ANYONE who had done the math (which is to say both campaigns, numerous consultants, and some large media outlets), they would have said the vote goal for that race for each side was 95,000-97,000, and that 100k would be a comfortable win.
4) I say that only because turnout is great and all but in New Mexico, especially in 2008, its's not a problem. The problem is actually reaching voters, who by and large vote on one single issue. and the Dems are terrible at figuring out wht that issue is. Party loyalty, as people on this blog will attest, does know bounds.
...I'll buy that. The single issue/vote thing.
It could be that '08 comes down to how many stay home if their home girl/boy loses. It's a tough way to lose things.
Reminds me of the research following '02 that showed if just one more D vote was cast in each county, Florida would have never happened.
No idea if there's numbers behind that or folklore, but the point is solid.
Folks are far too concerned w/ numbers. The #'s around public opinion are far less important than what's driving the #'s - both in actual votes and polls. I really don't think it's a public opinion problem, a perception problem or even divergences between party affiliation and how folks vote.
It's really a conventional wisdom problem - that numbers alone are the path to victory. Ask Mark Penn and Camp Clinton.
Any party that can capture the mood of the electorate - (you know, what's really behind the numbers) and frame that mood (81% say we're going in the wrong direction) in the form of a rationale for change, offer a compelling strategy to reach your goals, foreshadow victory and a powerful vision, and tell a good story - can clean house.
Oh yeah, that with good organization thrown in to make it material.
Ooops. Did I give away too much? No way. I mean, how many folks are actually monitoring comments, besides y'all.
Shit. I've got the narratives n-e-way. In fact, I got so many I use them for coasters for my coffee. I come (relatively) cheap for campaigns that I believe in (which, unfortunately for me 
, sometimes means free). Expensive for others I'm ambivalent about. And priceless for those that I am against!
Now...I ain't saying I don't like and read a lot of polls 
Commenting by HaloScan
