LIBERTARIANS AND DEMS. I rarely disagree with Ezra, but he�s just plain wrong about the libertarians and their significance to a potential future Democratic majority. I talk about their potential in my book, and would also recommend libertarian Ryan Sager�s Elephant in the Room, in which he drills down further on the problem Republicans are now having with libertarians. (See my review here.) But Bush�s margins went up in 2004 over 2000, snorts Ezra. True enough, and let�s use George W. Bush�s 3-point national improvement as a benchmark to examine states where the Bush-over-John Kerry margins declined relatively -- that is, where Bush�s margins over Kerry were either smaller than his 2000 margins over Al Gore in absolute terms, or grew by 3 points or less and thus were less in relative terms. Turning first to states Bush lost both times but by wider margins in 2004, we find 12 usual suspects, most of them from the northeastern corridor: New Jersey, Hawaii, Rhode Island, New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and California. More interesting are the 15 twice-red states where Bush�s margin over Kerry was either absolutely smaller than it was over Gore, or was less than three points larger: Montana (-4.5 percent); Alaska (-4.2); Colorado (-1.9); Idaho (-1.4); South Dakota (-1.2); Ohio (-1.0); Nevada (-0.9); North Dakota (-0.2); Wyoming; (-0.2); North Carolina (-0.2); Virginia; (+0.2); Iowa (0.6) New Mexico (1.1); South Carolina (1.2); and Texas (1.6). One need not pull a map out to see the regional pattern here: Take out the two midwestern swing states (IA, OH), and what you have are mostly Mountain West states with strong libertarian traditions. (NC is probably the result of Kerry picking John Edwards; I�m at a loss as to how SC and TX snuck in there.) To be fair, some of the relative (non-)gains for Bush are a function of the return of Ralph Nader voters to Kerry who abandoned Gore, as well as the in-migration of Americans who have moved from the East or California to the Interior West for open spaces. But still, I think it�s very telling where Bush was losing relative ground despite improving his overall margins. How, then, did Bush improve by three points nationally -- or rather, where? Anybody who knows me should anticipate the answer, but the numbers are what they are: primarily in the South, of course. Holding aside outlier Vermont (where Bush improved 10.3 percent!)*, here are the top dozen states in terms of Bush�s year-against gains: Alabama (+10.8%); Tennessee (10.5); Oklahoma (9.3); Louisiana (6.8); West Virginia (6.5); Indiana (5.3); Florida (5.3); Georgia (4.9); Kansas (4.9); Nebraska (4.9); Kentucky (4.7); and Arkansas (4.4). Thus, Bush�s disproportionate southern gains account for his mostly stagnant if not declining support elsewhere. And I don�t think anyone needs me to start citing National Election Study or National Annenberg Election Study data to prove that the South is America�s least libertarian region�do they? Sager�s right, I�m right and -- dare I say it, because I rarely do -- Ezra is wrong.
--Tom Schaller
