Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 19, 2014, 10:13:26 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  U.S. Presidential Election Results
| | |-+  2004 U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: True Federalist)
| | | |-+  Dems actually made big gains in "swing states"
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Dems actually made big gains in "swing states"  (Read 2490 times)
The Vorlon
Vorlon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4565


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -4.21

View Profile
« on: November 08, 2004, 03:40:59 pm »
Ignore

One thing that is  interesting to follow is how the "swing states" trended in 2004. 

And by one definitiion, the Dems actually did pretty well.

In Ohio, for example, Bush won Ohio by 3.5% in 2000, while he lost the popoular vote by 0.5% - By this definition, Ohio in 2000 was 4% more Republican than the entire nation in 2000.

By contrast, in 2004 Bush won the entire nation by 3%, but won Ohio by about 2.5% - so Ohio is now 0.5% LESS Republican than the nation as a whole - a shift towards the dems of 4.5% in the 4 years (went from +4 GOP to +0.5% Dem)

Here are the other states:

A positive value means the state became More GOP oriented, a negative value more Democrat oriented.

7.30%   Alabama
6.99%   Tennessee - 11 EVs
6.15%   New Jersey
6.13%   Hawaii
5.44%   Oklahoma
4.67%   Rhode Island
4.10%   New York
3.65%   Connecticut
3.33%   Louisiana
2.97%   West Virginia - 5 EVs
1.95%   Delaware
1.73%   Florida - 27 EVs
1.65%   Indiana
1.49%   Nebraska
1.42%   Kansas
1.25%   Georgia
1.24%   Kentucky
0.95%   Maryland
0.94%   Utah
0.87%   Arkansas - 6 Evs
0.80%   Arizona - 10 EVs
0.42%   Missouri - 11 EVs

A Total of 60 EVs in "swing states" became more GOP Friendly


-0.16%   Mississippi
-1.30%   Massachusetts
-1.45%   Illinois
-1.58%   Michigan 17 EVs
-1.65%   Pennsylvania - 21 EVs

-1.97%   Texas
-2.02%   California
-2.28%   New Mexico - 5 EVs
-2.29%   Iowa - 7 EVs

-2.29%   South Carolina
-3.37%   Virginia
-3.78%   North Carolina
-3.80%   Wisconsin - 10 EVs
-4.00%   Wyoming
-4.18%   North Dakota
-4.48%   Nevada - 5 EVs
-4.60%   Ohio - 20 EVs
-4.62%   Minnesota - 10 EVs

-4.96%   South Dakota
-5.11%   Washington
-5.51%   Colorado
-5.59%   Idaho
-6.22%   New Hampshire - 4 Evs
-6.57%   Maine
-7.07%   Oregon - 7 Evs
-8.02%   Alaska
-8.11%   District of Columbia
-8.18%   Montana
-14.11%   Vermont

A Total of 111 Evs are now more Democratically inclined

This total of 111 includes Washington (11 EVs) and Oregon (7) which, I think it can now be argued, are no longer 'swing" states but would in a close election be considered part of the Democrats base.

To be fair, you might howver be inclined to count Arkansas and West Virginia as now being GOP "base" states.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2004, 03:46:02 pm by The Vorlon »Logged

No man's liberty is safe while Congress is in session...Thomas Jefferson
Shira
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1860


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: November 08, 2004, 03:49:54 pm »
Ignore

What about Colorado?
Does the number there indicate that it is going to be a swing state?
Logged

Understand, ye brutish among the people:and ye fools, when will ye be wise?
___________
Psalm 94:8
Comrade Sibboleth
Realpolitik
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 55451
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: November 08, 2004, 04:00:15 pm »
Ignore

Would be very interesting if Bush was allowed to run again in four years time.

As it is, some academic interest, but of no practical use at all...
Logged



Richard Hoggart 1918-2014
Shira
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1860


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: November 08, 2004, 04:01:44 pm »
Ignore


1.73%   Florida - 27 EVs


I calculated 1.18%

(52.22 - 51.04) - (48.85 - 47.87) = 1.18
Logged

Understand, ye brutish among the people:and ye fools, when will ye be wise?
___________
Psalm 94:8
A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23836
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

View Profile
« Reply #4 on: November 08, 2004, 04:22:09 pm »
Ignore

The people in some states are more persuadable than others. Calculating trends based on the national offset is foolish.
Logged
The Vorlon
Vorlon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4565


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -4.21

View Profile
« Reply #5 on: November 08, 2004, 04:34:54 pm »
Ignore


1.73%   Florida - 27 EVs


I calculated 1.18%

(52.22 - 51.04) - (48.85 - 47.87) = 1.18

We are just calculating it differently.

In 2000 the vote in Florida was tied, while Bush lost the PV by 0.51% - hence Florida was -0.51 in 2000.

In 2004, Bush won Florida by a tad under 5%, in a nation he won by 3% - hence a +2 GOP slant.

I was going from "margin of victory" - you were using GOP total vote.
Logged

No man's liberty is safe while Congress is in session...Thomas Jefferson
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15159
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #6 on: November 08, 2004, 04:50:50 pm »
Ignore

Good point. Bush's gains were mostly because he ran up larger margins in the states that he won, and reduced Kerry's margins in the states that he lost. In the swing states, not much changed either way, and thus they are now more Democratic relative to the national average.

As a result, whereas in the last election, the EC had about a 0.5% bias towards the GOP (as evidenced by the fact that Gore won the popular vote by about 0.5%, but lost Florida, the state that he needed to win, by 0.01%) but this time, it was about a 0.5% bias towards the Dems, since Kerry lost nationally by 3% but only lost Ohio, the crucial state for victory, by 2.5%.

So the EC, at least this time, favored Democrats, unlike last time when it favored Republicans. In 1996 it favored the Dems as well by this standard, but favored the GOP in 1992. So it really seems to swing back and forth and not permanently favor one party.
Logged
patrick1
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7377


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: November 08, 2004, 05:04:00 pm »
Ignore

Bush won Ohio despite the fact that the state lost jobs.  Were I a Democrat these statistics would not comfort me in the least.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47647


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: November 08, 2004, 05:05:59 pm »
Ignore

Bush won Ohio despite the fact that the state lost jobs.  Were I a Democrat these statistics would not comfort me in the least.

Ohio's going to loose a heck of a lot more jobs in the future, and perhaps more importantly, the median income is going to continue to decline.  So many parts of the US now have no economic reason for existing.
Logged

The essence of democracy at its purest is a lynch mob

AuH2O
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4246


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: November 08, 2004, 05:22:23 pm »
Ignore

Every race is different. I don't think there was a lot of real trend this year. I mean, is Rhode Island "trending" GOP?

The parties each have advantages and disadvantages in terms of their current position- obviously the GOP has a lot more power at the national level.
Logged

don't forget to remember, the devil's got pills in his eyes

look, laugh, but don't touch... cut you down to size
Comrade Sibboleth
Realpolitik
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 55451
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 08, 2004, 05:23:30 pm »
Ignore

Bush won Ohio despite the fact that the state lost jobs.  Were I a Democrat these statistics would not comfort me in the least.

If Bush were allowed to run again these statistics would be useful. He can't. They're not.

---
Democratic strategists messed up in Ohio as well... not the farce that was their WV "campaign" but still...
Wasting so much time in Florida was the biggest mistake they made overall... I don't like Florida. Kerry should have got strategists that don't like Florida either.
Logged



Richard Hoggart 1918-2014
Fmr. Gov. NickG
NickG
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3698


Political Matrix
E: -8.00, S: -3.49

View Profile
« Reply #11 on: November 08, 2004, 05:24:29 pm »
Ignore

Vorlon's point is absolutely true...the Democrats were much more focused on swing states and swing voters, and it worked...despite a big gain for Bush in the popular vote, they held on to almost all of Gore's close states in 2000, and in many of these states, won independents by double digits.  Kerry just couldn't quite overcome the strong nationwide turnout by Republicans.

This demographics of this election bode well for the Democrats' Electoral College hopes in the future.  But they bode extremely poorly for their hopes of retaking the Senate.    Bush won 26 states by more than 6%, although these states have only 222 electoral votes.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2004, 05:28:31 pm by Gov. NickG »Logged
Comrade Sibboleth
Realpolitik
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 55451
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: November 08, 2004, 05:33:33 pm »
Ignore

But they bode extremely poorly for their hopes of retaking the Senate.    Bush won 26 states by more than 6%, although these states have only 222 electoral votes.

Kentucky Results 2004:

Bush: 59%
Kerry: 39%

Bunning: 51%
Mongiardo: 49%

Without the boosted Evangelical turnout because of the Presidential campaign, Dr Dan would have won.
Logged



Richard Hoggart 1918-2014
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27833


Political Matrix
E: 2.84, S: 0.00

View Profile
« Reply #13 on: November 08, 2004, 06:21:05 pm »
Ignore

Because Bush will not run again, it makes most of these assumptions we're making with regards to these sort of things probably wrong.

However, I would note that I personally predicted many times (as opposed to Shira's theories) that in this election that Florida would be 2-3 to the GOP side of the Bush margin in the popular vote.  I thought Ohio would be 0.5% to the GOP side of the popular vote because the bad jobs economy (was 1% off there) and that Pennsylvania would be 3-4% to the Dem side of the popular vote.

As a rule, unless Franklin County in Ohio is getting more Democrat (and I don't think it is, unless this jobs thing continues to grow), Ohio will trend Republican in the future as the exurbs of Cincinnati grow and act like Kentucky and Indiana in voting patterns and Cuyahoga County and NE Ohio tends to lose population.

That's how the GOP won this election; it's how they will be successful in Ohio in the future if they can keep Franklin county under wraps.
Logged
Shira
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1860


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: November 08, 2004, 09:43:16 pm »
Ignore

Vorlon's point is absolutely true...the Democrats were much more focused on swing states and swing voters, and it worked...despite a big gain for Bush in the popular vote, they held on to almost all of Gore's close states in 2000, and in many of these states, won independents by double digits.  Kerry just couldn't quite overcome the strong nationwide turnout by Republicans.

This demographics of this election bode well for the Democrats' Electoral College hopes in the future.  But they bode extremely poorly for their hopes of retaking the Senate.    Bush won 26 states by more than 6%, although these states have only 222 electoral votes.

The Democrats do not have any chance to take the Senate in the foreseeable future. The Reps won all heavily Rep states. There were only two real contests this time, in FL and in CO. Remember that the number of predefined Rep states is much greater than the number of predefined Dem states. The Democrat senators in ND, WV, MT and NE could be the next ones. On the other hand, Rick Santorum of PA and Gordon Smith of OR could also be removed.
In the house the Democrats have a better chance.
Logged

Understand, ye brutish among the people:and ye fools, when will ye be wise?
___________
Psalm 94:8
A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23836
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

View Profile
« Reply #15 on: November 08, 2004, 10:18:16 pm »
Ignore

We control enough state legislatures to gerrymander our way out of any serious Democratic competition in the House. You'll just have to win the presidency, or you're screwed.
Logged
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15634


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: November 08, 2004, 10:50:04 pm »
Ignore

The "margin" is going to be screwed up because of the Nader collapse. If it was Kerry 48% Bush 48% Nader 3% before, and Kerry 50% Bush 49% now, with Nader not on the ballot or not receiving significant votes, Kerry's margin over Bush improved from 0 to +1, but Bush actually gained in the state because Kerry's improvement came from the fact that Nader is no longer such a force.

There are only three states that I can tell so far where Bush lost in his percentage from 2000: VT, MT, and ME.
Logged

Brian Schweitzer '16
No more McShame
FuturePrez R-AZ
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1092


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: November 09, 2004, 01:43:20 am »
Ignore

Vorlon's point is absolutely true...the Democrats were much more focused on swing states and swing voters, and it worked...despite a big gain for Bush in the popular vote, they held on to almost all of Gore's close states in 2000, and in many of these states, won independents by double digits.  Kerry just couldn't quite overcome the strong nationwide turnout by Republicans.

This demographics of this election bode well for the Democrats' Electoral College hopes in the future.  But they bode extremely poorly for their hopes of retaking the Senate.    Bush won 26 states by more than 6%, although these states have only 222 electoral votes.

The Democrats do not have any chance to take the Senate in the foreseeable future. The Reps won all heavily Rep states. There were only two real contests this time, in FL and in CO. Remember that the number of predefined Rep states is much greater than the number of predefined Dem states. The Democrat senators in ND, WV, MT and NE could be the next ones. On the other hand, Rick Santorum of PA and Gordon Smith of OR could also be removed.
In the house the Democrats have a better chance.


Gordon Smith is well-liked in OR.  He works well with the state's Democratic Senator and the people of Oregon seem to like that arrangement.  He won by over 10 points in 2002.
Logged

Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: 7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.31

My political view's summarized
Comrade Sibboleth
Realpolitik
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 55451
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: November 09, 2004, 04:16:43 am »
Ignore

We control enough state legislatures to gerrymander our way out of any serious Democratic competition in the House. You'll just have to win the presidency, or you're screwed.

Not true actually. Unless all the GOP controlled legislatures pull a DeLay (and that would NOT be a popular move) you can't gerrymander your way out until the next re-districting.
Logged



Richard Hoggart 1918-2014
Acastus
csmith476
Rookie
*
Posts: 40


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: November 09, 2004, 12:44:05 pm »
Ignore

Vorlon,

After looking at some of these states, it seems that Nader's stronger 2000 showing relative to his showing in 2004 is skewing things a bit.  For instance, Montana looks like it became relatively much more Democratic.  However, Nader polled about 6% in 2000 versus 1% in 2004.  Not coincidentally, Kerry did about 5 points better than Gore did in Montana.  Therefore, combined with the national swing of Bush +3, it looks like MT swung much more than it did.

Is there any way to "weed out" the Nader effect in your analysis to figure out what the true swing is?  I suppose you could simply add the Nader vote to the Gore vote and do the whole excercise over, though assuming that all Nader voters preferred Gore is not a good assumption.  Any ideas?
Logged

Acastus Thessaleus
CARLHAYDEN
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10660


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

View Profile
« Reply #20 on: November 09, 2004, 03:59:09 pm »
Ignore

Er, Vorlon, check this out:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/892gyemc.asp?pg=2
Logged

Registered in Arizona for Fantasy election purposes.
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26550


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

View Profile
« Reply #21 on: November 09, 2004, 06:09:52 pm »
Ignore

Dems won't win either senate or House for some time. Congress has now picked up on the national trend and realigned the South...Democrats in Congress are where Democratic presidential candidates were in the 70s and 80s...not in a good position.

It will improve later on, but senate favours Republicans due to their larger number of states and House due to gerrymandering and better control of state legislatures.
Logged

This place really has become a cesspool of degenerate whores...

Economic score: +0.9
Social score: -2.61

In MN for fantasy stuff, member of the most recently dissolved centrist party.
CARLHAYDEN
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10660


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

View Profile
« Reply #22 on: November 09, 2004, 08:45:06 pm »
Ignore

Also, I did some rought calculations and it appears to me that Bush heavily carried those persons who voted in 2004 but did not vote in 2000.
Logged

Registered in Arizona for Fantasy election purposes.
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines