Can Obama win Florida in 2012?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:07:55 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  Can Obama win Florida in 2012?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Can Obama win Florida in 2012?  (Read 10168 times)
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: January 04, 2011, 08:14:31 PM »


Again, the insight is blinding...

On topic, it will be tough, given it wasn't exactly a blowout in 2008.

Will he? I have no idea. Can he? sure.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: January 05, 2011, 08:51:40 AM »

Proposition: Florida has a pro-incumbent bias for presidential elections.

What do people think?
Logged
Zarn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,820


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: January 05, 2011, 09:03:36 AM »

Proposition: Florida has a pro-incumbent bias for presidential elections.

What do people think?

I wouldn't buy it.
Logged
Mr. Taft Republican
Taft4Prez
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,230
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: January 05, 2011, 09:10:44 AM »

Proposition: Florida has a pro-incumbent bias for presidential elections.

What do people think?

It went for Reagan in 1980, sooooo not exactly.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: January 05, 2011, 09:11:00 AM »

Proposition: Florida has a pro-incumbent bias for presidential elections.

What do people think?

I wouldn't buy it.

Here's my best effort at an objective rundown.

2000: Obama wins Florida narrowly, narrower than national margin. Factors: McCain a good candidate for older voters.

2004: Bush wins Florida easily, wider than national margin. Factors: general Republican swing; lack of Democratic effort compared to 2000; Bush administration sprays cash at Florida like a firehose in wake of hurricanes.

2000: Gore wins Florida narrowly, equivalent to national margin. Factors: Democrats perform stronger than expected across the board; Lieberman excites south Florida Dem turnout through the roof.

1996: Clinton wins Florida easily, slightly narrower than national margin. Factors: if McCain was good for older voters, how about Dole?

1992: Bush wins Florida narrowly. 'nuf said.

1988: Bush wins Florida by a huge margin. 'nuf said.

1984: Reagan wins Florida by an enormous margin. 'nuf said. At this point we're running into the "Florida was just good for Republicans in the 80s" hypothesis. But why would that be so?

1980: Reagan wins Florida by a huge margin despite Carter being from a neighboring state. No incumbent bias here. But is this too far back, and before significant change, to be relevant?
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: January 05, 2011, 09:11:46 AM »

Proposition: Florida has a pro-incumbent bias for presidential elections.

What do people think?

It went for Reagan in 1980, sooooo not exactly.

Yes, but you have to go back 30 years and when the state had half its current population to find a swing against an incumbent party like that.
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: January 05, 2011, 09:12:40 AM »

Proposition: Florida has a pro-incumbent bias for presidential elections.

What do people think?

I wouldn't buy it.

I wouldn't either.   Bush43 wasn't going to lose it in his re-election bid against Kerry...no way no how.  And Clinton wasn't going to lose it to Dole, no way, no how......and in 1984 every state turned into a Reagan red state, sans MN and of course the DC.  

Shall we go further back?

He'll win it just because he will.
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: January 05, 2011, 09:12:51 AM »


lol
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: January 05, 2011, 09:14:11 AM »


Seriously I didn't think b33 was on that bandwagon.  lulz
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: January 05, 2011, 09:18:51 AM »


Bush won it legally, but for the purposes of saying what Florida's partisan balance was, Gore absolutely had more people coming out intending to vote for him. It took a large number of spoiled ballots in Duval County and Buchanan votes in PBC for Bush to get more votes.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: January 05, 2011, 09:21:07 AM »

Ok, so let's put it this way. We have two options:

1. Florida has a pro-incumbent bias.
2. Florida is a Republican state that unexpectedly swung to vote close to the national median in 1996 and 2000.

I think the burden is on people to explain the reasons for #2. Note that the trend map for Florida in 2000 shows Gore doing very well in areas with few Jews, like Central Florida and the Gulf Coast.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: January 05, 2011, 09:21:57 AM »

I wouldn't either.   Bush43 wasn't going to lose it in his re-election bid against Kerry...no way no how.  And Clinton wasn't going to lose it to Dole, no way, no how......

I'm looking at the margin of victory, not just who won.
Logged
Mr. Taft Republican
Taft4Prez
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,230
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: January 05, 2011, 09:34:59 AM »

Proposition: Florida has a pro-incumbent bias for presidential elections.

What do people think?

It went for Reagan in 1980, sooooo not exactly.

Yes, but you have to go back 30 years and when the state had half its current population to find a swing against an incumbent party like that.
Well to be fair there were 3 elections since then that there were incumbents.
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: January 05, 2011, 09:38:13 AM »

I wouldn't either.   Bush43 wasn't going to lose it in his re-election bid against Kerry...no way no how.  And Clinton wasn't going to lose it to Dole, no way, no how......

I'm looking at the margin of victory, not just who won.

Ok I see where your theory is possible looking at the maps from those other elections.....do you think he can win by a wide margin with a not-so hot economy?
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: January 05, 2011, 09:39:23 AM »

Proposition: Florida has a pro-incumbent bias for presidential elections.

What do people think?

It went for Reagan in 1980, sooooo not exactly.

Yes, but you have to go back 30 years and when the state had half its current population to find a swing against an incumbent party like that.
Well to be fair there were 3 elections since then that there were incumbents.

Plus 2 where the incumbent VP ran for President, which is close.
Logged
Mr. Taft Republican
Taft4Prez
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,230
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: January 05, 2011, 10:03:24 AM »

Proposition: Florida has a pro-incumbent bias for presidential elections.

What do people think?

It went for Reagan in 1980, sooooo not exactly.

Yes, but you have to go back 30 years and when the state had half its current population to find a swing against an incumbent party like that.
Well to be fair there were 3 elections since then that there were incumbents.

Plus 2 where the incumbent VP ran for President, which is close.
In that case, Florida went to Bush in 2000, so theres a closer example.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: January 05, 2011, 10:12:11 AM »

In that case, Florida went to Bush in 2000, so theres a closer example.

Ok, so let's put it this way. We have two options:

1. Florida has a pro-incumbent bias.
2. Florida is a Republican state that unexpectedly swung to vote close to the national median in 1996 and 2000.

2000 still needs an explanation.
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: January 05, 2011, 10:17:18 AM »

In that case, Florida went to Bush in 2000, so theres a closer example.

Ok, so let's put it this way. We have two options:

1. Florida has a pro-incumbent bias.
2. Florida is a Republican state that unexpectedly swung to vote close to the national median in 1996 and 2000.

2000 still needs an explanation.

The 2000 election had a lot of bizarre quirks, no? 
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: January 05, 2011, 11:39:11 AM »

In that case, Florida went to Bush in 2000, so theres a closer example.

Ok, so let's put it this way. We have two options:

1. Florida has a pro-incumbent bias.
2. Florida is a Republican state that unexpectedly swung to vote close to the national median in 1996 and 2000.

2000 still needs an explanation.

He got by with a little help from his friends.

Let's just get the partisan hacks out of the administration of elections -- OK?
Logged
Mr. Taft Republican
Taft4Prez
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,230
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: January 05, 2011, 11:44:01 AM »

In that case, Florida went to Bush in 2000, so theres a closer example.

Ok, so let's put it this way. We have two options:

1. Florida has a pro-incumbent bias.
2. Florida is a Republican state that unexpectedly swung to vote close to the national median in 1996 and 2000.

2000 still needs an explanation.

He got by with a little help from his friends.

Let's just get the partisan hacks out of the administration of elections -- OK?
End the FEC, that seriously screws third parties, like Perot in '96.

As for 2000, sh*t happens.
Logged
Mjh
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 255


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: January 05, 2011, 01:46:18 PM »

In that case, Florida went to Bush in 2000, so theres a closer example.

Ok, so let's put it this way. We have two options:

1. Florida has a pro-incumbent bias.
2. Florida is a Republican state that unexpectedly swung to vote close to the national median in 1996 and 2000.

2000 still needs an explanation.

He got by with a little help from his friends.

Let's just get the partisan hacks out of the administration of elections -- OK?
End the FEC, that seriously screws third parties, like Perot in '96.

As for 2000, sh*t happens.

Ralph Nader is what happened to the Democrats.
Logged
°Leprechaun
tmcusa2
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,114
Uruguay


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: January 05, 2011, 04:18:12 PM »



Not a likely scenario, but it shows how important the smallest of states are.
270-268 for Obama.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
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 0.049 seconds with 12 queries.