What contributes to a state's elasticity?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 05:41:13 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  What contributes to a state's elasticity?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: What contributes to a state's elasticity?  (Read 6695 times)
old timey villain
cope1989
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,741


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 25, 2013, 10:53:56 PM »

A lot has been said about certain states trending one way or the other, but I'm always happy when people contribute to these discussions by mentioning the elasticity of the state. For instance, despite Obama's very strong showing in Wisconsin in 2008 many people here were warning that Obama could lose it in 2012 due to its elasticity. He won Wisconsin but many counties trended very strongly away from him. At the same time, Romney's last minute ad buy in Pennsylvania didn't seem to scare anybody here since it is perceived as being very inelastic.

So what makes a state elastic or inelastic? Most southern states seem inelastic maybe because of voting along racial lines. But a lot of midwestern and New England states have high elasticity, maybe because there are a lot of independent voters. But what do you think causes this?
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 25, 2013, 11:57:11 PM »

It has to do with the demographics of each party's base in the state. The Midwestern and New England states tend to have higher elasticities because they have a large number of moderates and independents, and in the case of many Midwestern states, the partisans they do have aren't as extreme. In contrast, states like Mississippi or Oregon have very few persuadable voters and the results are largely determined by demographics.
Logged
TDAS04
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,392
Bhutan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 26, 2013, 04:35:34 PM »

It has to do with the demographics of each party's base in the state. The Midwestern and New England states tend to have higher elasticities because they have a large number of moderates and independents, and in the case of many Midwestern states, the partisans they do have aren't as extreme. In contrast, states like Mississippi or Oregon have very few persuadable voters and the results are largely determined by demographics.

Oregon does have a reputation of consisting of hippies and rednecks, and not much in between, but according to Silver, Oregon is quite elastic.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/21/swing-voters-and-elastic-states/?_r=0

Oregon actually does swing quite a bit.  Obama carried the state by 16% in 2000, but Gore did so by only 0.4.  Still, Oregon does have enough solid liberals to make Republican victories very difficult.

Overall, only the West rivals New England in elasticity and third party performance.  Wile Perot obtained only 9% in Mississippi in 1992, he received 24% in Oregon, so clearly Oregon has an independent streak.
Logged
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,107
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.10, S: -7.65

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 26, 2013, 04:57:40 PM »

It has to do with the demographics of each party's base in the state. The Midwestern and New England states tend to have higher elasticities because they have a large number of moderates and independents, and in the case of many Midwestern states, the partisans they do have aren't as extreme. In contrast, states like Mississippi or Oregon Maryland have very few persuadable voters and the results are largely determined by demographics.

This ^^^

Replaced Oregon with Maryland as an example.
Logged
Mr. Illini
liberty142
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,838
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.26, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 27, 2013, 12:26:23 AM »

I would say independents are the largest factor. Wisconsin, especially in the rural areas as well as the Green Bay Metro, has a lot of swingy, "decide on the day-of" voters. I've spent quite a bit of time in the state and the voters there are not at all afraid to label themselves as being a part of one party while giving half of their ticket to a different party. The same applies to states like New Hampshire, Ohio, and Iowa, although I haven't spent quite as much time in those places.
Logged
Phony Moderate
Obamaisdabest
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,298
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 27, 2013, 06:00:39 PM »

Degree of party loyalty. Voters in Montana and North Dakota are far less tribal than voters in New York and Alabama.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,386
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 28, 2013, 08:47:33 PM »

It was mostly educated, middle/upper-middle class, non-evangelical, suburban whites in the North and West that made states elastic.

Ah yes, the "socially liberal but fiscally conservative" crowd.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,386
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: November 29, 2013, 12:23:15 AM »

It was mostly educated, middle/upper-middle class, non-evangelical, suburban whites in the North and West that made states elastic.

Ah yes, the "socially liberal but fiscally conservative" crowd.

On which, the future of America hinges.

Ugh.
Logged
buritobr
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,591


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: November 29, 2013, 05:30:50 PM »

And the opposite of the "socially liberal but fiscally conservative"? They exist?
Are there voters who are social conservative but support a big welfare state?
Do they also contribute to state's elasticity?
Logged
old timey villain
cope1989
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,741


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: November 30, 2013, 01:20:59 AM »

And the opposite of the "socially liberal but fiscally conservative"? They exist?
Are there voters who are social conservative but support a big welfare state?
Do they also contribute to state's elasticity?

Yes, they exist and they contribute to the success of Dems at the statewide and local level in states like Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, West Virginia and Missouri. A lot of people in these states are lower income and support a strong safety net, they just want to make sure the benefits are going to the "right people."
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: November 30, 2013, 01:56:48 AM »

And the opposite of the "socially liberal but fiscally conservative"? They exist?
Are there voters who are social conservative but support a big welfare state?
Do they also contribute to state's elasticity?

Yes, but they're on the decline. In the past decade the Republicans have succeeded in convincing poor Appalachian whites that siphoning their money to the 1% actually helps them. They're so opposed to abortion and gay marriage that they figure Republicans MUST be correct about that as well.
Logged
LastVoter
seatown
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,322
Thailand


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: November 30, 2013, 05:52:07 AM »

It was mostly educated, middle/upper-middle class, non-evangelical, suburban whites in the North and West that made states elastic.

Ah yes, the "socially liberal but fiscally conservative" crowd.

On which, the future of America hinges.

Ugh.
It's the sad truth.
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,279
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: November 30, 2013, 12:10:34 PM »

It was mostly educated, middle/upper-middle class, non-evangelical, suburban whites in the North and West that made states elastic.

Ah yes, the "socially liberal but fiscally conservative" crowd.

On which, the future of America hinges.

Ugh.
It's the sad truth.

Too sad, really.
Logged
TTS1996
Rookie
**
Posts: 99
Australia
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: November 30, 2013, 02:24:19 PM »

And the opposite of the "socially liberal but fiscally conservative"? They exist?
Are there voters who are social conservative but support a big welfare state?
Do they also contribute to state's elasticity?

Yes, but they're on the decline. In the past decade the Republicans have succeeded in convincing poor Appalachian whites that siphoning their money to the 1% actually helps them. They're so opposed to abortion and gay marriage that they figure Republicans MUST be correct about that as well.
Please, tell us how contemptuous you are of Appalachian whites and just how thick you think they are? "Oh, they only vote Republican because they've been convinced by unscrupulous men to give their money to the rich".
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: November 30, 2013, 02:56:04 PM »

And the opposite of the "socially liberal but fiscally conservative"? They exist?
Are there voters who are social conservative but support a big welfare state?
Do they also contribute to state's elasticity?

Yes, but they're on the decline. In the past decade the Republicans have succeeded in convincing poor Appalachian whites that siphoning their money to the 1% actually helps them. They're so opposed to abortion and gay marriage that they figure Republicans MUST be correct about that as well.
Um 5 years of a Dem Presidency and the wage gap has stayed the same or widened in my opinion and this is a Republican issue or problem that they have caused?
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: November 30, 2013, 04:25:46 PM »

And the opposite of the "socially liberal but fiscally conservative"? They exist?
Are there voters who are social conservative but support a big welfare state?
Do they also contribute to state's elasticity?

Yes, but they're on the decline. In the past decade the Republicans have succeeded in convincing poor Appalachian whites that siphoning their money to the 1% actually helps them. They're so opposed to abortion and gay marriage that they figure Republicans MUST be correct about that as well.
Please, tell us how contemptuous you are of Appalachian whites and just how thick you think they are? "Oh, they only vote Republican because they've been convinced by unscrupulous men to give their money to the rich".

Well, they were solidly fiscally liberal until the gay marriage/abortion issues became contentious. And until the face of the Democratic Party became a black man. I was being generous in assuming the issue was the former and not the latter.
Logged
LastVoter
seatown
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,322
Thailand


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: December 01, 2013, 04:01:49 AM »

It was mostly educated, middle/upper-middle class, non-evangelical, suburban whites in the North and West that made states elastic.

Ah yes, the "socially liberal but fiscally conservative" crowd.

On which, the future of America hinges.

Ugh.
It's the sad truth.

Too sad, really.
Very unfortunate that future of America rests on the crowd that would sell out their own mother.
Logged
SingingAnalyst
mathstatman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,639
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: May 16, 2015, 12:34:47 PM »

And the opposite of the "socially liberal but fiscally conservative"? They exist?
Are there voters who are social conservative but support a big welfare state?
Do they also contribute to state's elasticity?

Yes, but they're on the decline. In the past decade the Republicans have succeeded in convincing poor Appalachian whites that siphoning their money to the 1% actually helps them. They're so opposed to abortion and gay marriage that they figure Republicans MUST be correct about that as well.
Please, tell us how contemptuous you are of Appalachian whites and just how thick you think they are? "Oh, they only vote Republican because they've been convinced by unscrupulous men to give their money to the rich".

Well, they were solidly fiscally liberal until the gay marriage/abortion issues became contentious. And until the face of the Democratic Party became a black man. I was being generous in assuming the issue was the former and not the latter.
I'd imagine concern about the future of coal jobs is a factor as well.
Logged
bobloblaw
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,018
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: May 16, 2015, 12:43:05 PM »

A lot has been said about certain states trending one way or the other, but I'm always happy when people contribute to these discussions by mentioning the elasticity of the state. For instance, despite Obama's very strong showing in Wisconsin in 2008 many people here were warning that Obama could lose it in 2012 due to its elasticity. He won Wisconsin but many counties trended very strongly away from him. At the same time, Romney's last minute ad buy in Pennsylvania didn't seem to scare anybody here since it is perceived as being very inelastic.

So what makes a state elastic or inelastic? Most southern states seem inelastic maybe because of voting along racial lines. But a lot of midwestern and New England states have high elasticity, maybe because there are a lot of independent voters. But what do you think causes this?

If a state is racially homogenous. NH and IA have among the highest elasticities. Independents also mean that OH and FL are elastic.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: May 16, 2015, 10:37:56 PM »

If a state is racially homogenous. NH and IA have among the highest elasticities. Independents also mean that OH and FL are elastic.

The inhomogeneity isn't the reason why states with a lot of minorities tend not to be very elastic; it's that Republicans get 15% max of the black vote. Thus states with a lot of whites will have more potentially persuadable voters.

If you look at states with a lot of Hispanics and/or Asians, they can end up being rather elastic (eg. New Mexico and Hawaii).
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« 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 0.053 seconds with 11 queries.