The Red Shift

OK, it wasn't a landslide. But it was a message. George W. Bush received not only a majority of the electoral, but a majority of the popular vote as well.

*****

As I stated in my very first post on this page, I'm not a big fan of debating politics. I'm content to listen to what others have to say, even if I don't necessarily agree (who knows, maybe they're right!). I do, however, love the historical ramifications of politics, and how it shapes society and policy (whether I agree with it or not).

****

This year is no exception. What we witnessed last week can be called the Red Shift, a term I learned on Jesse's blog. We saw what was a very, very close election in 2000 conspicuously tip over into the Republican's (the red states) favor in 2004.

****

There were a couple of factors in this Red Shift this year. The first came from the 2000 Census (which had not yet taken effect in the 2000 election) resulting in a shift in population and EVs (electoral votes) which favored the Republicans. If the states had gone last week exactly as they did in 2000, Bush would have gained 7 EVs just from the net shift in EVs, and he would have won with 278 EVs as opposed to the 271 EVs in 2000.

****

But we know that population was not the only factor in the Red Shift. There were three states which "switched sides" in this election. New Hampshire was the only one of the three, however, that made a Blue Shift which took 4 EVs away from President Bush.

*******

Perhaps the most dramatic switches came from Iowa and New Mexico, two states that traditionally go Blue. This time they made the Red Shift, giving Bush an additional 12 EVs and making his victory more decisive.

******

One of the interesting "what if" questions is, "What if there was no Red Shift in population/EVs, and New Mexico and Iowa did not shift to the red, but New Hampshire did shift to the blue? Our news would be filled with stories about possible cabinet appointments in the Kerry administration.

*****

But in every other scenario with or without a population shift, with any one, or two, or all three of the above states going red would still have resulted in a Bush win.

*****

It is my opinion that the Red Shift will only intensify in the next two decades at least unless there are dramatic changes within one or both major political parties. The red states are generally growing in population. While a few red states lost EVs, some states had tremendous

growth (Arizona, Georgia, Texas, and Florida each gained 2 EVs). Conversely, the blue states are generally losing population (New York and Pennsylvania each lost 2 EVs). California is the only state that actually gained.

****

As the Red Shift intensifies, it essentially erodes the effectiveness in the blue states. This will make it increasingly more difficult for liberal Democrats to get elected president unless they can be exceedingly charming (like Bill Clinton) and/or the Republican candidate is exceedingly lackluster (like Bob Dole).