Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 27, 2014, 10:08:56 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Election Archive
| |-+  2004 U.S. Presidential Election
| | |-+  Compare: Kerry vs Bush Surge
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: Compare: Kerry vs Bush Surge  (Read 3125 times)
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15897


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: April 07, 2004, 07:17:54 pm »
Ignore

California isn't the only states Republicans have huge voter registration drives. The Wash. Post recently reported Republican registration in Calvert county, Md., which has had a Democratic advantage for decades, recently exceeded Democratic registration for the first time. Shortly after that, Democratic registration once again took the lead, but probably not for long... Any look at national party identification shows Republicans reaching parity with Democrats since 9-11 for the first time since the 1930s. The % Democratic identifiers peaked in the 1960s, when the whole country was practically Democrat. During the late 1960s and early 1970s, a lot of this was lost to Independents, who surged as a demographic at the cost of both parties. By the late 1970s, only about 20% of Americans identified themselves as Republicans, and some newsmagazines were predicting the end of that party. During the '80s, Republican identification rose, Democratic identification declined, but this was halted during the Clinton years. The slide for Dems resumed again starting around 2000. If current trends continue, there will be more registered Republicans by Nov. 1 than registered Democrats, for the first time in 70 years.
Logged

angus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14719
Political Matrix
E: 1.87, S: -7.65

View Profile
« Reply #26 on: April 07, 2004, 07:23:22 pm »
Ignore

California isn't the only states Republicans have huge voter registration drives. The Wash. Post recently reported Republican registration in Calvert county, Md., which has had a Democratic advantage for decades, recently exceeded Democratic registration for the first time. Shortly after that, Democratic registration once again took the lead, but probably not for long... Any look at national party identification shows Republicans reaching parity with Democrats since 9-11 for the first time since the 1930s. The % Democratic identifiers peaked in the 1960s, when the whole country was practically Democrat. During the late 1960s and early 1970s, a lot of this was lost to Independents, who surged as a demographic at the cost of both parties. By the late 1970s, only about 20% of Americans identified themselves as Republicans, and some newsmagazines were predicting the end of that party. During the '80s, Republican identification rose, Democratic identification declined, but this was halted during the Clinton years. The slide for Dems resumed again starting around 2000. If current trends continue, there will be more registered Republicans by Nov. 1 than registered Democrats, for the first time in 70 years.

good point.  and the 1960s, those were the days, eh?  2/3 of both houses Democrat, viet nam, tax and spend, johnson's great society, and Kerry & Bush fellow yalies skulling.
Logged
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15897


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: April 07, 2004, 07:31:54 pm »
Ignore

Naturally I like the 60s... times of unpredecented prosperity and opportunity. The only black spot was Vietnam.
Logged

Kghadial
Full Member
***
Posts: 224


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: April 07, 2004, 09:06:55 pm »
Ignore

Angus,

Asians are not Republicans. Nor are they trending Republican. Bush did worse then Bob Dole did among Asians. Considering that the consensus is that Bush will do much worse in the Muslim community, and his apparent hostility to the outside world, I think Bush will do even worse among Asians.

Secondly, democrats aren't going to ignore Hispanics like they did last time. Hell, Bill Richardson was/is a top tier choice for Veep. Despite Bush's efforts to woo Hispanics the new millions will still break Dem (but by possibly thinner margins).

The election of Arnold has helped democrats in the state. Gives them someone to demonize and fundraise and get all riled up about. Not to mention there is no Gray Davis making Dems look bad.


Bush won't break 5 million votes in California.  Bush won't get within a million of Kerry.


hello kghadial,
always good to read your posts.  a couple of points:  I did not mean to suggest or have you infer that asians are trending republican.  I simply stated the fact that they are among the most economically conservative and socially conservative demographics out there.  (not that there are no asian republicans, as two very well informed asian republicans filled the "asians" thread with very interesting posts, I'm not sure if you were here yet.)

The hispanic paragraph was total speculation I admit.  But the two most populous states in the union are 1/3 hispanic each.  That amounts to eleven million in this state and about 7.5 million in texas.  This demographic voted about twice as much to re-elect gov bush in 98 as compared to 94, and many speculate that nationwide he'll get more support this time than in 2000.  I think it's a reasonable assumption.  But you're right, Democrats can read and will attempt to counteract this.  Like Asians, they tend to have much lower VAP voters, and like asians, those that do vote split about 65-70% or maybe a little less to the Dems.

You are exactly right about Arnold.  Most of the right wing of the republican party wanted Davis to stay in and try to defeat him in 2006, and very little of the right wing of this party voted for Arnold (I think McClintock got over 10%, meaning some must have sold out to pragmatism).  My guy came in around 14th of 162 in that special election, by the way.  He was a far left republican who probably has more in common with the Libertarians, but who is a proud registered Republican who claims to support Bush.  

Nevertheless, I haven't changed my original map since I posted it:  

Bush 283    
Generic Democrat 255

Have a nice day.  Smiley

Always good reading your posts angus,
I didn't mean that there are NO asian republicans, but   that asians relative conservatism would have little affect on california's politics even if they had greater numbers

About Bush and Hispanics ...
The Texas economy during Bush's first Term was very good. Groups that tend to have high unemployment, like Hispanics, are predisposed to voting with their pocketbook so Bush got their vote in his reelection bid. Considering this, the fact that the unemployment rate is about 2% higher (considering the discouraged as well) than 3.5 years ago , and that Hispanics often are "last hired, first fired" it seems logical to me that their pained pocketbooks might make them less predisposed to be amused by bush
Logged

Canada? Only if they start drafting people
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47618


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: April 07, 2004, 09:14:24 pm »
Ignore

Naturally I like the 60s... times of unpredecented prosperity and opportunity. The only black spot was Vietnam.

The US is far more prosperous now, its just more unequal.  The sixties sowed the seeds of inflation - which interestingly is connected to the egalitarianism.
Logged

The essence of democracy at its purest is a lynch mob

Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines