Talk Elections

Brad Coker over at Mason Dixon was kind enough to forward to me some of the details of their recent poll of West Virginia.

I have posted a .pdf for those interested.

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/IMAGES/WVRelease504.pdf (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/IMAGES/WVRelease504.pdf)

Thanks for getting this Vorlon!

I'd like to point out, since someone on another threat commented on Bush's strength in the eastern Panhandle...  I have a cabin out there and spend much time there; it is like a DC suburb practically.  I'd be hard-pressed to see Bush winning that part of WV... but, frankly, I was unsure, so I didn't question the statement of Bush's strength there.  That region is the 2nd CG.  This internal data shows Kerry with a decent lead there.  He's better in the 3rd and worse in the 1st, but, nonetheless, at least according to this poll, Kerry leads in the eastern WV Panhandle.  I would expect that.  Thanks again for posting this!

CD-2 is a really wierd district (as is CD-1. Bring back WV-4!)... it basically stretches across the state from east to west... everything from Dem-leaning Charleston to the central Coal mountains (Democrat of course), on up to the mid-Alleghanies (GOP. Mostly since the Civil War), and finally to the Eastern Panhandle.
The Eastern Panhandle is made up of 3 counties; one is solidly GOP (since the Civil War) another leans GOP, and the easternmost one (Jefferson) leans Dem (since the Civil War) and is probably the one you've got your cabin in. It's just about the most socially liberal part of WV (which isn't saying a lot) and Kerry should be able to win Jefferson back this year.

Interesting numbers...
Kerry appears to have a lot of room to expand (15% undecided in the Coal District. Ho Hum...) and Bush's numbers in CD-1 and CD-2 are worse than I would have expected (and not only are those bad numbers for Bush, they are bad for Capito's chances)...
Manchin's coat tails could (and may already be) give[ing] Kerry a big boost...

No.  It's in Morgan.  Morgan County *IS* solid Bush, as you note, but it is changing as the Washingtonians invade... this is especially noticeable in the county seat (Berkeley Springs).  Yes, Morgan will STILL probably go for Bush in 2004.  But it went 63%-34% for Bush over Gore in 2000.  I'd bet it'd be around 55%-45% this year.  Berkeley County will probably lean Bush.  Jefferson County will likely go to Kerry... by a smaller percentage win than Morgan goes for Bush, but by more than enough popular vote count for Kerry to take the Panhandle in 2004.

Mind you, most Washingtonians are, like I, part time residents, not registered to vote and, thus, still vote in MD.  So, I'm NOT saying Kerry will suddenly wipe the floor with Bush in all three counties.  No way.  Morgan will almost certainly still go to Bush.  Berkeley is only a little more Dem firendly.  My point is... it's changing, and the gap in Morgan and Berkeley Counties is closing enough such that Jefferson can "flip" the Panhandle to Democrat in a very close election.  In close elections (keep in mind, 2000 was NOT terribly close in WV... not a landslide, but not tight... 6+%), I don't think the Panhandle will ever go Republican in the foreseeable future.  The Dems won't win by huge margins, and may lose one (or two, barely) of the three counties, but they'll take the Panhandle in close elections.

FWIW, Gore lost by about 12% in the Panhandle in WV.  Levelling his 6% statewide loss to simulate a close election, it'll yield a 6% loss in the Panhandle.  The vote total in the Panhandle was about 43,000.  So, 6% is about 2600 votes.  Nader got almost 1000 in the Panhandle.  So, Kerry (or the Dems in general) need only flip about 1500 voters in the entire Panhandle in order to turn that region of the state.  I'd be surprised if this hasn't already happened.

kerry is only getting 68% of the dems?  pretty weak showing.

Seems like it...until you facotr in that 60.5% of WV's population is registered Democratic, compared to only 29.5% Republican.

Interesting... thanks :)

that's true.  but look where the democratic candidate for governor stands among democrats.

 WV electorate is about 95%+ white, so if Bush is only leading in the male vote 50-46, then he is in severe trouble, not just in WV, but it would slame the door shut on him in PA as well, because Bush needs these voters, who tend to be more working class, to win. I am curious about the Ohio poll internals as well when it comes out next.

  Without winning close to 60% of the white male vote, Bush is toast nationally.

Yessss... but Manchin is a very, very popular Sec of State.

It's odd that Bush's numbers have gone down with the white vote in general... and that he's still polling (nationally) similer numbers to 2000.
Maybe he's gained amoung Hispanics?

I think it depends on the area.  In the southwest, and Florida I believe he is polling better among Hispanics than he was in 2000.  In some other areas with a high hispannic population such as NYC I don't think he is polling any better.  It could be interesting in that he improved his numbers among hispanics in some of the battleground southwest states which would generally help him win the states, but not having the same advantage with the white vote he had in 2000  in some of these states is what could cost him the states.

    I know I am harping on this, but the stands Bush has taken on "free" trade and amnesty for illegal immigrants has hurt him among the white working class, voters who are socially Conservative, but as The Vorlon would term, economically stressed. The same forces took down former Sen. Abraham R-MI in 2000.

  Bush doing better among Hispanics will help him gain only one state, New Mexico, compared to 2000, it wont help him gain states elsewhere. Bush doing worse among the white working class may very well caus ehim to lose WV, OH and possibly even MO and AR.

Read any good magazines lately?

  And what is that supposed to mean? If you habve an issue with the points I have brought up, please make them.

  Sen Abraham was done in because his views were out of line with the swing voters of MI, he was pro free tarde and pro immigration, and those views cost him dearly among the white working class, you can not deny this is also hurting Bush in some states right now.

millwx,

I live in Montgomery county and I know some people who as you say have temporary residences in WV but certainly do not live or work there. Morgan county is far away from the Washington metropolitian area. In between is Frederick county, and this is a conservative county that went heavily for Bush and Ehrlich. Even in Western Montgomery the Republicans had some strength otherwise Morella would not have survived as long as she did. So though there may be some impact from the Washington area, if you think it might affect Morgan county by 10%, would it affect Frederick county as well? The exurbs are the most Republican areas of all.

()

built-up area in beige, as you can see Berkeley & Morgan are FAR from the metro area. Frederick is closer to everything except the very tip of Berkeley. Loudon county where Leesburg is, is the quintessential exurb-- a heavily Republican county that is growing at some 30% a year, one of the top 5 in the nation.

Picture doesn't work

...for people who aren't logged in as a paid member

Works now... there is no fee :)

Oh, I thought it was an Atlas map.

Not necessarily.  I understand your reasoning on the gap between the major metro area out to Morgan County, but it's not a continuous transition.  Morgan County, because of Berkeley Springs and surrounding towns, is probably Democratizing faster than Berkeley or Jefferson County, WV or Frederick or Montgomery County, MD.

Yes, I do believe, as urban sprawl continues, all of those counties will slowly move left.  But Morgan County is a special case.  It is becoming very "crunchy granola" as the locals call it.  There is a heavy influx in Berkeley Springs and surrounding areas of gays, environmentalists, and otherwise left-of-center people.  MOST are NOT permanent residents, but more and more so are becoming such.  I personally know of a half dozen such people who have moved there in the past fw months (all of who will vote for Kerry, if he's not too RIGHT wing for them!).  Yes, it's only a half-dozen, but this is in a short time, and I wouldn't call myself either a social butterfly or someone who's primarily acquainted with left-wingers.

Anyway, yeah, I think all of those counties will slowly ease left... but Morgan County will do so more rapidly.

Thanks for your analysis millwx, this is interesting.

Loudon County isn't just top 5, it holds the top spot.  It went like 65-35 Bush last time, this time it'll be like 52-48 Bush.

This fast growing Loudon county is typical of the fastest growing counties in the US - strongly Republican.  So much for the theory that 'the suburbs are trending left'.

That's way outer exurban. Inner suburbs (like Fairfax county) definately are.

They're just becoming part of the City - no growth or outright population decline.  All the population growth is occurring in the exurbs.  Hence the net effect on the vote statewide is parity.

I have a feeling that this debate won't be settled until Bush fails or succeeds to break 60% in Loudon County, VA on Nov 2 (easternmost example).

"Strongly Republican" means absolutely nothing in terms of trend.  In fact, the data show Loudon County *definitely* trending "left".  Compare the Loundon County voting to the overall state...
1980 Loudon County was +13.5% Republican (Reagan)
1984 Loudon County was +11.3% Republican (Reagan)
1988 Loudon County was +13.1% Republican (Bush)
1992 Loudon County was +7.2% Republican (Bush)
1996 Loudon County was +9.8% Republican (Dole)
2000 Loudon County was +7.2% Republican (Bush)

This may seem to bounce too much to be an obvious trend, but Loudon County was +4.2% in 1992 compared to the rest of the state for Perot.  Since more (though certainly not all) of Perot's support came from Bush, Loudon County would have otherwise been in the +8 to +12% Republican range (compared to the rest of the state) in 1992 were Perot not there.  So, 1988 is the only bump, and it's a pretty small one at that.  Otherwise, there has been a steady decline in the Republican advantage in Loudon County.

So, over 20 years there's been a greater than 6% Democrat swing in Loudon County.  Growth there (influx of more centrist, if not left of center voters) has not been linear; it has been increasing.  It is no coincidence that 5% of that 6% Democrat swing has been in the past 10 years.  I'm pretty confident in saying that Loudon County will be +5% Republican compared to the rest of the state in the 2004 election.  I expect Bush to win VA by about 5% (maybe a bit more), so Bush should take Loudon County by 10%... 55% to 45% (with some exception for a few percentage to Nader and others).

The fastest growing counties are currently strongly republican because there are very few people before the growth.  This means that the area is sparsly populated ergo strong GOP.  However, as it grows it moves to the left.

Yes but getting 60% of the vote in a heavily populated county can be better than getting 70% in a sparsely populated rural one, in terms of net contribution to the statewide vote.  

And one that occurred pretty much all over Suburbia. Dukakis did very bad there - on the other hand, he did quite well in some rural areas, better than Clinton and Gore.

That's true too, o/c.

Is there a list of the fastest growing counties in the US somewhere? like a top 50 or 100?

I wonder if my county is on the list...its big as it is...and has huge growth rates...wonder how it compares

http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/census2000/usnav/usnav.htm

Interesting site...

Eastern Pa is going to dominate PA politics for a long time.

though the state is now starting to grow again...3.4% during the 90s...up from 0.2% in the 80s.