Talk Elections

Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion => Presidential Election Trends => Topic started by: WalterMitty on March 26, 2005, 03:10:06 PM



Title: rhode island?
Post by: WalterMitty on March 26, 2005, 03:10:06 PM
was bush's improvement in rhode island an anomaly, driven by wedge issues?

or is ri making a slight turn to the right?


Title: Re: rhode island?
Post by: Keystone Phil on March 26, 2005, 03:12:56 PM
A seven point increase is pretty good. I don't know how to explain it.


Title: Re: rhode island?
Post by: nclib on March 26, 2005, 04:19:04 PM
I found R.I.'s swing very surprising, especially since Nader did well there in 2000.


Title: Re: rhode island?
Post by: Jake on March 26, 2005, 04:24:44 PM
Catholic swing driven by wedge issues I'd guess.  Don't see a trend at all.


Title: Re: rhode island?
Post by: Beet on March 26, 2005, 05:05:02 PM
Personally, I think it was Bush's mention of a Rhode Island girl's letter in his state of the union address. It was probably the only national attention the state has gotten since it was founded by Roger Williams :)


Title: Re: rhode island?
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 26, 2005, 05:07:28 PM
Wedge issues. Interestingly very few townships switched.


Title: Re: rhode island?
Post by: MaC on March 26, 2005, 06:30:37 PM
Catholic swing driven by wedge issues I'd guess.  Don't see a trend at all.

That's funny that the Catholics are turning right about now, cuz Rhode Island historically, since the time it was a small colony was known for being a safe haven when Catholics weren't persecuted for not having Protestant beliefs.  Considering traditionally Protestants prefer Republicans and Catholics prefer Democrats, it is interestinng to see this change.


Title: Re: rhode island?
Post by: dazzleman on March 26, 2005, 06:30:56 PM
Bush made improvements in his performance in 2004 over 2000 in nearly all the liberal states that he lost by large margins, even Massachusetts.  In Connecticut, he went from 38% of the vote in 2000 to 44% in 2004.

Of course, it was nowhere near enough for him to carry any of those states.  I don't think it was anything like a trend.  I think 2004 was simply less of a generic election than 2000.  2000 was a straight generic election, since neither candidate was an incumbent, while 2004 was a referendum on Bush.  Incumbency has certain advantages, even in politically unfriendly territory.


Title: Re: rhode island?
Post by: Smash255 on March 26, 2005, 06:32:39 PM
Bush made improvements in his performance in 2004 over 2000 in nearly all the liberal states that he lost by large margins, even Massachusetts.  In Connecticut, he went from 38% of the vote in 2000 to 44% in 2004.

Of course, it was nowhere near enough for him to carry any of those states.  I don't think it was anything like a trend.  I think 2004 was simply less of a generic election than 2000.  2000 was a straight generic election, since neither candidate was an incumbent, while 2004 was a referendum on Bush.  Incumbency has certain advantages, even in politically unfriendly territory.

I agree in a 50/50 type election in 2008, you will probably go back to see Rhode Island with a close to 30 pt victory for the Dems


Title: Re: rhode island?
Post by: Jake on March 26, 2005, 06:37:14 PM
Catholic swing driven by wedge issues I'd guess.  Don't see a trend at all.
That's funny that the Catholics are turning right about now, cuz Rhode Island historically, since the time it was a small colony was known for being a safe haven when Catholics weren't persecuted for not having Protestant beliefs.  Considering traditionally Protestants prefer Republicans and Catholics prefer Democrats, it is interestinng to see this change.

As long as people vote on social issues, Catholics will vote for the Republican, that is unless the Democrats turn populist on us.


Title: Re: rhode island?
Post by: Smash255 on March 26, 2005, 06:48:45 PM
Catholic swing driven by wedge issues I'd guess.  Don't see a trend at all.
That's funny that the Catholics are turning right about now, cuz Rhode Island historically, since the time it was a small colony was known for being a safe haven when Catholics weren't persecuted for not having Protestant beliefs.  Considering traditionally Protestants prefer Republicans and Catholics prefer Democrats, it is interestinng to see this change.

As long as people vote on social issues, Catholics will vote for the Republican, that is unless the Democrats turn populist on us.

Not really, their are many Catholics that are socially liberal (myself included).  Some of the most socially liberal states in the country (R,.I, Mass, Vermont & NY especially the downstate region) are heavily Catholic


Title: Re: rhode island?
Post by: Jake on March 26, 2005, 07:11:02 PM
Socially liberal Catholics are in the minority though, just like socially liberal protestants.  The Catholic vote swinging to Bush in New England was masked by Kerry's regional advantage.


Title: Re: rhode island?
Post by: dazzleman on March 26, 2005, 07:11:35 PM
Catholic swing driven by wedge issues I'd guess.  Don't see a trend at all.
That's funny that the Catholics are turning right about now, cuz Rhode Island historically, since the time it was a small colony was known for being a safe haven when Catholics weren't persecuted for not having Protestant beliefs.  Considering traditionally Protestants prefer Republicans and Catholics prefer Democrats, it is interestinng to see this change.

As long as people vote on social issues, Catholics will vote for the Republican, that is unless the Democrats turn populist on us.

Jake, I think you have to make a distinction between nominal Catholics and practicing Catholics.  Only a certain percentage of nominal Catholics are practicing, and they are the ones most likely to vote Republican.  All my parents' old friends are practicing Catholics, and they all vote Republican.  Always did, by the way.  It's nothing recent.

Most of my friends who are practicing Catholics, or even Christians who take the religion seriously, vote Republican.  The Democratic party is for non-religious people, even if they call themselves Catholic or Christian.


Title: Re: rhode island?
Post by: phk on March 26, 2005, 07:44:30 PM
Catholic swing driven by wedge issues I'd guess.  Don't see a trend at all.
That's funny that the Catholics are turning right about now, cuz Rhode Island historically, since the time it was a small colony was known for being a safe haven when Catholics weren't persecuted for not having Protestant beliefs.  Considering traditionally Protestants prefer Republicans and Catholics prefer Democrats, it is interestinng to see this change.

As long as people vote on social issues, Catholics will vote for the Republican, that is unless the Democrats turn populist on us.

Jake, I think you have to make a distinction between nominal Catholics and practicing Catholics.  Only a certain percentage of nominal Catholics are practicing, and they are the ones most likely to vote Republican.  All my parents' old friends are practicing Catholics, and they all vote Republican.  Always did, by the way.  It's nothing recent.

Most of my friends who are practicing Catholics, or even Christians who take the religion seriously, vote Republican.  The Democratic party is for non-religious people, even if they call themselves Catholic or Christian.

But "non-religous" folks comprise only 15% of the nation; while Christians comprise 75%. In a rang of 55-45, there certainly are religous Democrats; but they emphasize economic issues and aren't that easily wedge-issue driven.

Its not that black-and-white. One of my best friends is actually a Republican despite him being an all-out athiest. Another one of my friends is very religous and very socially conservative and is still a Democrat, solely because of economic issues.


Title: Re: rhode island?
Post by: dazzleman on March 26, 2005, 07:46:03 PM
Catholic swing driven by wedge issues I'd guess.  Don't see a trend at all.
That's funny that the Catholics are turning right about now, cuz Rhode Island historically, since the time it was a small colony was known for being a safe haven when Catholics weren't persecuted for not having Protestant beliefs.  Considering traditionally Protestants prefer Republicans and Catholics prefer Democrats, it is interestinng to see this change.

As long as people vote on social issues, Catholics will vote for the Republican, that is unless the Democrats turn populist on us.

Jake, I think you have to make a distinction between nominal Catholics and practicing Catholics.  Only a certain percentage of nominal Catholics are practicing, and they are the ones most likely to vote Republican.  All my parents' old friends are practicing Catholics, and they all vote Republican.  Always did, by the way.  It's nothing recent.

Most of my friends who are practicing Catholics, or even Christians who take the religion seriously, vote Republican.  The Democratic party is for non-religious people, even if they call themselves Catholic or Christian.

But "non-religous" folks comprise only 15% of the nation; while Christians comprise 75%.

Its not that black-and-white. One of my best friends is actually a Republican despite him being an all-out athiest.

Your definition of religious is not really what I meant.  You have a much more liberal definition of the term.


Title: Re: rhode island?
Post by: King on March 26, 2005, 07:53:33 PM
Exnaderites for Bush? :P


Title: Re: rhode island?
Post by: Smash255 on March 26, 2005, 10:05:25 PM
Socially liberal Catholics are in the minority though, just like socially liberal protestants.  The Catholic vote swinging to Bush in New England was masked by Kerry's regional advantage.

Not really.  Most of my friends are Catholic and the vast majority of them are socially liberal, granted most are in their early to mid 20's, but its still true nonetheless


Title: Re: rhode island?
Post by: Jake on March 26, 2005, 10:07:05 PM
Socially liberal Catholics are in the minority though, just like socially liberal protestants.  The Catholic vote swinging to Bush in New England was masked by Kerry's regional advantage.

Not really.  Most of my friends are Catholic and the vast majority of them are socially liberal, granted most are in their early to mid 20's, but its still true nonetheless

Actual Catholics.  CINO's, like your friends, may be socially liberal.


Title: Re: rhode island?
Post by: Smash255 on March 26, 2005, 11:08:08 PM
Socially liberal Catholics are in the minority though, just like socially liberal protestants.  The Catholic vote swinging to Bush in New England was masked by Kerry's regional advantage.

Not really.  Most of my friends are Catholic and the vast majority of them are socially liberal, granted most are in their early to mid 20's, but its still true nonetheless

Actual Catholics.  CINO's, like your friends, may be socially liberal.

I AM an actual Catholic.  Just because I am socially liberal and don't agree with the church on issues such as abortion & birth control doesn't mean I'm NOT an actual Catholic.  The Catholic Church is also against the Death Penalty.  By a comment like that I assume your Catholic as well and I know your for the Death Penalty.  So by your idiotic generalzations that must mean your a CINO also


Title: Re: rhode island?
Post by: dazzleman on March 27, 2005, 09:00:06 AM
Socially liberal Catholics are in the minority though, just like socially liberal protestants.  The Catholic vote swinging to Bush in New England was masked by Kerry's regional advantage.

Jake, I do think you're overstating this trend.  Many of the Catholics in the northeast are non-practicing, and are socially liberal.  The serious, practicing Catholics are much more conservative, but they're not enough to make up a majority.

I also think that a person from outside the region would have performed roughly as well as Kerry did in the northeast.

Few Catholics agree with the church's position on every issue.  But those who practice lean more conservative, and may support the church's position on abortion and morality in general, but not the death penalty.  These people generally vote Republican.  There's a small minority of serious practicing Catholics who think the Democrats represent the "help the poor" sensibility of the church so much better than the Republicans that they are willing to overlook the hostility of many base Democratic constituencies toward the religion, and vote Democratic.  But as I said, this is a small minority.

Then there is a large contingent of non-practicing but nominal Catholics who support abortion, casual sex, etc., and are essentially part of the unchurched population.  These people largely vote Democratic.


Title: Re: rhode island?
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 27, 2005, 09:46:40 AM
Church attendence in parts of New England is actually pretty high.


Title: Re: rhode island?
Post by: dazzleman on March 27, 2005, 09:51:09 AM
Church attendence in parts of New England is actually pretty high.

True, but not high enough, and with a strong enough majority, to counteract (a) the minority who attend church and still vote Democratic; and (b) the rest of the population, which doesn't attend church and votes strongly Democratic.

I was just trying to make the point to Jake that he shouldn't overstate the potential effect of the Catholic vote in the northeast.


Title: Re: rhode island?
Post by: Hitchabrut on March 27, 2005, 10:00:12 AM
One problem with this argument about Catholics: Protestants swung to Bush in RI and Catholics stayed at a relatively similar level. This was very unlike the states adjacent to it, but you can see for yourself: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html


Title: Re: rhode island?
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 27, 2005, 10:18:31 AM
I treat exit polls as an amusement not as facts


Title: Re: rhode island?
Post by: dazzleman on March 27, 2005, 10:45:13 AM
One problem with this argument about Catholics: Protestants swung to Bush in RI and Catholics stayed at a relatively similar level. This was very unlike the states adjacent to it, but you can see for yourself: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Great link.  It was kind of interesting to see how poorly Bush performed among Catholics in Rhode Island, even compared to Massachusetts and particularly Connecticut.

Well I always said Connecticut was superior. :)  Right now, unfortunately, politically it's just the best of a bad bunch.


Title: Re: rhode island?
Post by: Smash255 on March 27, 2005, 03:08:13 PM
One problem with this argument about Catholics: Protestants swung to Bush in RI and Catholics stayed at a relatively similar level. This was very unlike the states adjacent to it, but you can see for yourself: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Great link.  It was kind of interesting to see how poorly Bush performed among Catholics in Rhode Island, even compared to Massachusetts and particularly Connecticut.

Well I always said Connecticut was superior. :)  Right now, unfortunately, politically it's just the best of a bad bunch.

One interesting thing about CT is the vote by income.  The $75k-100k went to Bush +6, the 150k-200k went to Bush by 28, but  in between those two was the 100k-150k which went to Kerry by 37


Title: Re: rhode island?
Post by: dazzleman on March 27, 2005, 06:16:49 PM
One problem with this argument about Catholics: Protestants swung to Bush in RI and Catholics stayed at a relatively similar level. This was very unlike the states adjacent to it, but you can see for yourself: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Great link.  It was kind of interesting to see how poorly Bush performed among Catholics in Rhode Island, even compared to Massachusetts and particularly Connecticut.

Well I always said Connecticut was superior. :)  Right now, unfortunately, politically it's just the best of a bad bunch.

One interesting thing about CT is the vote by income.  The $75k-100k went to Bush +6, the 150k-200k went to Bush by 28, but  in between those two was the 100k-150k which went to Kerry by 37

I noticed that too.  Very strange.  I think there's a section of the upper middle class that tends to be very Republican, and once they get beyond that point, they are freer to vote Democratic.  Keep in mind that the purchasing power of those income levels varies widely depending upon section of the state, so it's hard to draw hard conclusions from them.


Title: Re: rhode island?
Post by: TeePee4Prez on March 27, 2005, 09:11:02 PM
Socially liberal Catholics are in the minority though, just like socially liberal protestants.  The Catholic vote swinging to Bush in New England was masked by Kerry's regional advantage.

Not really.  Most of my friends are Catholic and the vast majority of them are socially liberal, granted most are in their early to mid 20's, but its still true nonetheless

Mine vary quite a bit.  Out of my friends, I am easily one of the more socially liberal.  Funny though none of them I can say are really religious.


Title: Re: rhode island?
Post by: ian on March 29, 2005, 07:59:30 PM
Socially liberal Catholics are in the minority though, just like socially liberal protestants.  The Catholic vote swinging to Bush in New England was masked by Kerry's regional advantage.

Not really.  Most of my friends are Catholic and the vast majority of them are socially liberal, granted most are in their early to mid 20's, but its still true nonetheless

Actual Catholics.  CINO's, like your friends, may be socially liberal.

That's quite an offensive statement.


Title: Re: rhode island?
Post by: Gustaf on April 05, 2005, 04:29:08 AM
People can definitely be religious and left-winged for a variety of reasons.

I don't think we should take the Midatlantic/Lower New England threads seriously yet. I suspect there was an element of those states not being targeted and voting for the incumbent plus proximity to New York.