Maximizing geography of losing candidates (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 28, 2024, 01:47:42 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 100% pro-life no matter what)
  Maximizing geography of losing candidates (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Maximizing geography of losing candidates  (Read 3026 times)
SNJ1985
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,277
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.19, S: 7.57

« on: December 05, 2014, 09:14:09 PM »



Edwin Edwards- 864,150
David Duke- 863, 890

It would be interesting to see the same thing done for the 1990 LA Senate race, where Duke performed a few points better than he did in his 1991 gubernatorial bid.
Logged
SNJ1985
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,277
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.19, S: 7.57

« Reply #1 on: December 05, 2014, 09:56:01 PM »

^ My attempt:



Johnston- 680,466
Duke- 679,823
Others- 35,923

Johnston's strength was less concentrated in New Orleans than Edwards'. I didn't touch the third parties' share of the votes. Johnston was from Shreveport and got 63% in Caddo Parish. If you concede Caddo to Johnston, you could get many of the rural parishes several shades darker blue.

Thanks!
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.027 seconds with 12 queries.