Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 12, 2016, 01:19:10 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 509
1  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Major Candidate Criteria on: February 11, 2016, 11:55:01 am
Wesley Clark won the Oklahoma primary in 2004 so would qualify under criteria 2 also.
2  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Can their ever be another 50 state sweep and how would a person achieve the goal on: February 10, 2016, 04:09:15 pm
If there were some sort of major event just prior to the election that swung things towards (or against) the incumbent. For example, President Bush had a 90 percent approval rating after the 9/11 terror attacks, and thus almost certainly would have won all 50 states if the attacks had happened right before the 2004 election instead of when they did.

Or conversely, President Nixon's approval rating dipped to below 20 percent right before his resignation and thus he almost certainly would have lost all 50 states if the full degree of revelations had come out immediately before the 1972 election as opposed to in 1974.
This. Even so I think Bush would have lost VT and Nixon would have won MS and a handful of rocky mountain states. Have we ever had a 50-state sweep?

Never, though Reagan came very close in 1984, narrowly losing Minnesota. Nixon in 1972 also won 49 states but Massachusetts wasn't particularly close.
3  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Can their ever be another 50 state sweep and how would a person achieve the goal on: February 08, 2016, 12:34:36 pm
If there were some sort of major event just prior to the election that swung things towards (or against) the incumbent. For example, President Bush had a 90 percent approval rating after the 9/11 terror attacks, and thus almost certainly would have won all 50 states if the attacks had happened right before the 2004 election instead of when they did.

Or conversely, President Nixon's approval rating dipped to below 20 percent right before his resignation and thus he almost certainly would have lost all 50 states if the full degree of revelations had come out immediately before the 1972 election as opposed to in 1974.
4  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: 1988 Election: Bush/Quayle vs. Hart/Gore on: February 05, 2016, 06:51:56 pm
Depends on whether anyone had ever heard of Donna Rice or not.

If so, the above map is about right, except for Colorado (it was right about at the national average that year, so Hart wouldn't need much of a home state boost to win it if he loses nationally by 5%). If not, he probably wins, albeit narrowly.
5  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / New Hampshire primary bellwether counties on: February 02, 2016, 09:57:15 pm
For the Democrats, voting for every primary winner since at least 1992:

Belknap
Hillsborough
Rockingham
Strafford

For the Republicans, the only county that has supported the primary winner in every election since 1992 is Sullivan.
6  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Name the next three U.S. Presidents on: February 01, 2016, 12:43:00 pm
To appreciate the futility of this exercise, consider how many people if asked this question on January 20th, 1989 would have included Barack Obama.
7  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Iowa caucus bellwether counties on: January 31, 2016, 08:44:46 pm
Thanks. Interesting how the bellwether counties for both parties run essentially east to west down the middle of the state.
8  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Iowa caucus bellwether counties on: January 31, 2016, 01:16:13 pm
The following counties have backed the winning candidate in every Democratic caucus since 1992 (at least; that's as far back as we have county maps on Atlas; if you know of county results from before then, feel free to expand this list):

Allamakee
Audubon
Black Hawk
Bremer
Buchanan
Buena Vista
Carroll
Cedar
Clayton
Clinton
Des Moines
Dickinson
Dubuque
Grundy
Iowa
Linn
Marshall
Muscatine
Plymouth (tied in 2000)
Poweshiek
Scott
Story
Webster
Wright (tied in 2004)

And these counties have voted for the winning Republican in every Iowa caucus since 1992:

Adair
Appanoose
Audubon
Benton
Buchanan
Butler
Cass
Cherokee
Clay
Crawford
Davis
Emmet
Gayette
Floyd
Franklin
Greene
Grundy
Guthrie
Henry
Jasper
Kossuth
Louisa (tied in 2012)
Madison
Mills
Page
Ringgold
Sac
Wapello
Warren
Wayne
Wright
9  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Was there still some vestige of the New Deal Coalition in 1996? on: January 30, 2016, 01:54:58 pm
Yes, there is quite a bit of truth to that. The "death" of the New Deal coalition took quite a while, and the 1990's were a transitionary period in this realignment.

Clinton actually did better with seniors than any other age group in 1996, made more surprising by the fact that of course Dole was a member of the WW2 generation while Clinton was a baby boomer 22 years his junior.

Clinton had a lot of personal appeal to rural areas as "one of them" in a way that his opponents (Bush 41 in particular, and to a lesser degree Dole as a long time creature of Washington) were not.

Voters who remembered the New Deal and had voted for FDR were still quite common in 1992/1996. They are nearly all dead now.

Likewise suburbs were still fairly Republican. They started moving to the Dems in the 1990's in earnest but overall remained mostly GOP. This helps to explain why Dole won states such as Virginia and Colorado.
10  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Muslim vote on: January 15, 2016, 07:09:21 pm
The results for the city of Dearborn, MI are instructive since it is about 40% Muslim, by far the highest concentration in the US. It voted 52-44 for Bush in 2000, then swung to 59-40 Kerry in 2004, 65-33 Obama in 2008 and 67-32 Obama in 2012.
11  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: A possible and unprecedented EC snafu in 1860 on: December 18, 2015, 12:57:49 pm
Another benefit of the electoral college is that it prevents a candidate from winning who is only popular in one region. Lincoln won the Midwest, northeast, and had strong support in the west. A candidate can't win just by maxing out the vote in one region.

I think the EC made a lot more sense in the 1700s/1800s than it does today. With how much more difficult transportation and communication was then, one would expect that regional differences were much greater and regional interests much more different than today, and thus more of a need to respect those via greater states' rights as opposed to having a purer national democracy. Also, vote fraud would have been much easier to perpetrate at that time than today due to much less media coverage/transparency of the process.
12  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: A possible and unprecedented EC snafu in 1860 on: December 18, 2015, 12:46:59 pm
This really illustrates how undemocratic the Electoral College is; in this scenario in which every anti-Lincoln vote is cast for the same candidate, Lincoln loses the popular vote by more than 60% to 40% but still wins.

No, it just demonstrates how undemocratic the South was.  I'm sure the popular vote would've been much closer if 1. Lincoln had actually been allowed on the ballot in the South and most of all 2. they hadn't been actively disenfranchising the overwhelming majority of their population

OK, so there were 1,002,808 votes cast in states where non-Lincoln candidates received 95% or more (in all but two, they received 100%). There were 4,681,267 votes cast nationally, so that means that these states comprised a paltry 21.4% of the popular vote, despite comprising 92 EVs, which was 30.4% of the EV.

Side-note: Now, this part is rather irrelevant (other than showing the size of the South relative to its voting class), but I'm unsure whether the Census counts themselves were directly impacted by the Three-Fifths Compromise or not. The reason I say this is because the South's percentage of population relative to total population in the 1860 Census was 30.6%, which makes no sense to me if slaves were being counted 1:1 and the number of EVs/representation was 30.4% (practically identical). Assuming only 60% of slaves were being counted in Census numbers, then the South comprised 35.2% of the country's population.

At any rate, take that 21.4% of the voting population that went 99.5% or so for Douglas in this scenario and give Lincoln half of their votes, which would still never come close to happening, even if both of the criteria you outlined were in effect (source: 1876 presidential election, which was as optimistic as it got in real life; where Tilden got more than 60% of the popular vote in these states combined). With the 50/50 dynamic in the South, the result would be:

Lincoln: 2,352,383 (50.25%)
Douglas: 2,328,344 (49.74%)

So yeah, at best...a very slender victory for Lincoln if you ignore all of the realities of the times, add in all optimistic variables and then add another ten points minimum to Lincoln's regional total on top of that.

Additionally, remember that the GOP was a new concept in 1860 and Lincoln wouldn't have been viewed as a savior by blacks in a world in which black people were already treated as people and guaranteed the right to vote. They would have been far more likely to vote as their neighbors did, and their neighbors - as kind of proven by 100 years of white Southern voting patterns, later black Southern voting patterns by joining the same party as their white neighbors and 150 years of white behavior that followed - would still be kind of bent out of shape over the whole notion that blacks were then being treated equally. I highly doubt that Lincoln would have gotten over a quarter of the vote in your (logically-extended) scenario in these states combined.

Good analysis. Thanks for confirming my intuition.
13  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: A possible and unprecedented EC snafu in 1860 on: December 16, 2015, 11:45:47 am
This really illustrates how undemocratic the Electoral College is; in this scenario in which every anti-Lincoln vote is cast for the same candidate, Lincoln loses the popular vote by more than 60% to 40% but still wins.
14  About this Site / The Atlas / Re: Recent bans on: December 08, 2015, 11:02:51 am
Dudeabides messaged me and asked to be banned.
15  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Who Turned My Blue State Red? on: December 07, 2015, 02:42:39 pm
Lower turnout is absolutely part of the story, but the total number of Republican votes has also increased dramatically in these Appalachian areas, too, not just the percentage.
16  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Why Trump's lead is deceiving on: December 06, 2015, 12:46:28 pm
So many people focus on the fact that Trump's support hasn't collapsed. But it doesn't have to collapse; he has to expand it from his current 25-30% to 50%, since the field will eventually consolidate. For a candidate as polarizing as Trump, it will be difficult to gain support from voters not currently backing him.

The only realistic chance he has of being the nominee is if the field remains large and fractured enough that he can win primaries with 25% of the vote.
17  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Can Republicans win Michigan? on: December 06, 2015, 12:41:44 pm
If 2016 turned into a reverse 2008, Michigan would probably go GOP. The Republican would have to win the popular vote by at least 4-5 points nationally to have a chance, though.
18  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Does anyone here actually believe Jeb Bush has a shot at the nomination still? on: December 02, 2015, 07:32:02 pm
He has about as much chance as McCain had at this point eight years ago.
19  About this Site / The Atlas / Re: Recent bans on: November 30, 2015, 02:43:45 pm
Was he a sock?

Probably.
20  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: How political ads were in 1952 on: November 23, 2015, 05:56:46 pm
Also remember that television advertising was a brand new medium. They had no past precedent to go by.

The 1934 California gubernatorial campaign certainly gave a precedent, tho thankfully one neither candidate made use of in 1952.

True, I forgot about the hatchet job on Upton Sinclair.
21  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: How political ads were in 1952 on: November 21, 2015, 11:47:42 pm
Also remember that television advertising was a brand new medium. They had no past precedent to go by.

Eisenhower's ads were definitely more effective; it helped that he actually appeared in his ads. Sure, they were canned, with him answering the questions from "regular" voters and such, but he connected with voters in a way that Stevenson didn't.
22  About this Site / The Atlas / Re: Why did John McCain so decisively win the Atlas mock election of 2008? on: November 16, 2015, 10:27:24 pm
And there was a similar link on Libertarian sites in 2004, leading to Badnarik's great performance.
23  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Would Nixon have won in '60 had there been no voter fraud? on: November 12, 2015, 05:25:27 pm
Texas wasn't close enough to be affected by voter fraud--Kennedy's margin there was 2%. That's as much of a crackpot theory as Dems claiming Ohio was stolen in 2004 and Kerry was the rightful winner.

It's possible that Illinois was stolen, but it's true that there was fraud on both sides, so it's impossible to know to what degree they canceled each other out. And Nixon winning Illinois isn't enough to cost Kennedy an EV majority.

There's a reason why Nixon didn't pursue legal challenges to the 1960 results more aggressively.
24  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Process / Re: What if a Party's Nominee Dies Before Election Day? on: November 11, 2015, 01:31:26 am
Assuming the party had time to announce a replacement candidate before Election Day, it wouldn't be a major problem logistically, other than simply getting the word out to voters that a vote for deceased candidate x=a vote for replacement candidate y. The electors would then cast their vote for the replacement candidate instead of the candidate that they were pledged to. The VP nominee would almost certainly be picked by the party as the replacement candidate, and they would announce a VP choice.

If the death occurred after Election Day but before the EC voted, it would depend a lot on whether the candidate in question had won or lost. Much of the chaos of 1872 was caused by Greeley having lost, thus it didn't much matter who his electors voted for; they were free to vote their conscience. If the winning candidate died before the EC voted, the VP candidate would almost certainly be elected President, and would announce a new choice for VP whom the electors would also vote for.

The electors are the most loyal party members around....they would absolutely not risk splitting their votes if doing so meant throwing the election into the House.
25  About this Site / The Atlas / Re: 1952 & 1956 County Election Data? on: November 10, 2015, 12:41:31 pm
If you pay for membership to this site, you can get access to the results immediately. There's a reason why this data isn't free; it takes a lot of work to acquire and aggregate.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 509


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines