I think we all remember the 2008 Democratic primaries, that exciting and epic battle. In many ways the campaign caused more excitement than the general election, whose result was never really in doubt (especially after the financial crisis).

Both candidates drew upon distinctly different coalitions. In an influential article, Ronald Brownstein analyzes the difference this way:

Since the 1960s, Democratic nominating contests regularly have come down to a struggle between a candidate who draws support primarily from upscale, economically comfortable voters liberal on social and foreign policy issues, and a rival who relies mostly on downscale, financially strained voters drawn to populist economics and somewhat more conservative views on cultural and national security issues.

President Barack Obama assembled a coalition from the former, these “wine-track” Democrats. When most Americans think of liberals, they think of wine-track Democrats. Mr. Obama, then, was the liberal candidate; Mrs. Clinton the “beer-track,” working-class representative.

So candidate won the most liberal place in America?

The answer below (or, alternatively, in the title).

This is the third part of a series of posts analyzing the swing state Pennsylvania. Part four can be found here.

Philadelphia’s Suburbs

There used to be a time when Republicans could count on Philadelphia’s suburbs to counter Democratic margins from the city. Philadelphia and its suburbs, 1988:

Not anymore. Philadelphia and its suburbs, two decades later:

(Note: Because the Times stopped updating before all absentee/provisional ballots were counted, this map does not fully reflect the actual results. I have corrected the discrepancy.)

More below.

This is the second part of a series of posts analyzing the swing state Pennsylvania. The next part can be found here.

Like Florida, and unlike Ohio, Pennsylvania’s political geography can be divided into three. The industrial southwest is reddening, the populous southeast is bluing, and Pennsyltucky remains, as James Carville memorably described it, “Alabama without the blacks.” (Actually, Pennsyltucky is a fair bit less conservative.)

The following section will concentrate on Philadelphia, the region upon which Democrats draw the most votes.

Here is one of Rush Limbaugh’s critiques of Barack Obama:

We have 9.8% unemployment…I thought Obama had saved 23 million jobs! I thought he and Biden had saved all these jobs…Obama demeaned the office of the presidency going on this sales pitch for Chicago’s corrupt profiteering…That was the opportunity Mayor Daley and everybody saw and they sent Obama off to secure it. And I’ll tell you another reason he decided to go, not just because Daley sent him but Obama needed to distract everybody’s attention from his massive failures at home and abroad.

Ignore for a moment the argument Rush Limbaugh presents. Instead, look at his use of “Obama” and “Biden.” Limbaugh does not say “President Obama” or “Mr. Obama” – he just uses plain-old “Obama.”

It’s a lot easier to criticize Obama rather than Mr. Obama. The addition of “Mr.” or “President” elevates the man, implies that he is deserving of respect. Taking away the title relegates him to the rest of us mere mortals.

In the dying days of his campaign John McCain mounted a quixotic attempt to win Pennsylvania. Despite his efforts, Obama cruised to a double-digit victory; from May to November 4th, only one poll showed McCain leading.

Two years previously, Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum – a Republican politician who had ambitions of becoming president – ran for re-election. A hard-line, nationally known conservative, he was overwhelmingly defeated by challenger Robert Casey.

These two instances provide a sense of Pennsylvania’s political climate; the state, while not exactly liberal, naturally leans towards Democratic candidates. The average Republican must overcome a formidable Democratic machine to win Pennsylvania.

A while ago, while perusing the election results, I happened upon South Dakota. South Dakota is one of those states which everybody writes off as inevitably Republican. Yet nobody has a really good explanation for why Democrats can’t win it; it’s kind of like Indiana that way. Few people know this, but Bill Clinton twice came within four percent in the state.

Barack Obama lost South Dakota by 8.41%, a substantial but not overwhelming margin (I bet he could win it).

There is an extremely strong correlation between Indian reservations and Obama’s share of the vote in South Dakota.

Check it out:

Attacking gerrymandering these days is as popular as saying Wall Street needs reform. It’s a truism; everybody agrees with that “gerrymandering is bad,” just as everybody agrees that breathing is good.

For the purposes of this post I will be concentrating on one particular gerrymander: Arizona’s 2nd congressional district:

The New York Times posted a very interesting map of Afghanistan’s recent election.

The Italian Communist Party (PCI) formed in 1921, as a break-away faction of the socialist party. In many respects, its early years were similar to those of the PCF. Like the French Communists, the Italian Communist Party (PCI) fared poorly in national elections, winning less than five percent of the popular vote. Its time to grow, moreover, was cut short by Benito Mussolini’s dictatorship; he outlawed the party in 1926.

A mentor once told me not to study communism, because it was a dead system, and studying something dead is worthless.

In defiance of this sensible advice, I will be presenting two dead communist movements: the communists in Italy and the communists in France.