Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 20, 2014, 04:19:56 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  Presidential Election Trends (Moderators: Mr. Morden, Bacon King)
| | |-+  rhode island?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: rhode island?  (Read 2253 times)
WalterMitty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21009


Political Matrix
E: 1.68, S: -2.26

View Profile
« on: March 26, 2005, 03:10:06 pm »
Ignore

was bush's improvement in rhode island an anomaly, driven by wedge issues?

or is ri making a slight turn to the right?
Logged


I just slept for 11 hours, so I should need a nap today
Keystone Phil
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 52176


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: March 26, 2005, 03:12:56 pm »
Ignore

A seven point increase is pretty good. I don't know how to explain it.
Logged

The soon-to-be-re-elected Kings of Kansas.
nclib
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8824


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: March 26, 2005, 04:19:04 pm »
Ignore

I found R.I.'s swing very surprising, especially since Nader did well there in 2000.
Logged



[George W. Bush] has shattered the myth of white supremacy once and for all. -- Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY)

"George Bush supports abstinence. Lucky Laura."
- sign seen at the March for Women's Lives, 4/25/04

Jake
dubya2004
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18731
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

View Profile
« Reply #3 on: March 26, 2005, 04:24:44 pm »
Ignore

Catholic swing driven by wedge issues I'd guess.  Don't see a trend at all.
Logged
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16058


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: March 26, 2005, 05:05:02 pm »
Ignore

Personally, I think it was Bush's mention of a Rhode Island girl's letter in his state of the union address. It was probably the only national attention the state has gotten since it was founded by Roger Williams Smiley
Logged

Sibboleth
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 56807
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: March 26, 2005, 05:07:28 pm »
Ignore

Wedge issues. Interestingly very few townships switched.
Logged

"I have become entangled in my own data, and my conclusion stands in direct contradiction to the initial idea from which I started. Proceeding from unlimited freedom, I end with unlimited despotism. I will add, however, that there can be no solution of the social formula except mine."
MaC
Milk_and_cereal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9824


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: March 26, 2005, 06:30:37 pm »
Ignore

Catholic swing driven by wedge issues I'd guess.  Don't see a trend at all.

That's funny that the Catholics are turning right about now, cuz Rhode Island historically, since the time it was a small colony was known for being a safe haven when Catholics weren't persecuted for not having Protestant beliefs.  Considering traditionally Protestants prefer Republicans and Catholics prefer Democrats, it is interestinng to see this change.
Logged

Faster than a legally fired bullet.
More powerful than railroaded legislation.
Able to leap giant bureaucracy in a single bound.

It's an anarchist.  It's a free marketer.

It's... It's...        Super Libertarian
dazzleman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13821
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

View Profile
« Reply #7 on: March 26, 2005, 06:30:56 pm »
Ignore

Bush made improvements in his performance in 2004 over 2000 in nearly all the liberal states that he lost by large margins, even Massachusetts.  In Connecticut, he went from 38% of the vote in 2000 to 44% in 2004.

Of course, it was nowhere near enough for him to carry any of those states.  I don't think it was anything like a trend.  I think 2004 was simply less of a generic election than 2000.  2000 was a straight generic election, since neither candidate was an incumbent, while 2004 was a referendum on Bush.  Incumbency has certain advantages, even in politically unfriendly territory.
Logged
Smash255
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14368


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: March 26, 2005, 06:32:39 pm »
Ignore

Bush made improvements in his performance in 2004 over 2000 in nearly all the liberal states that he lost by large margins, even Massachusetts.  In Connecticut, he went from 38% of the vote in 2000 to 44% in 2004.

Of course, it was nowhere near enough for him to carry any of those states.  I don't think it was anything like a trend.  I think 2004 was simply less of a generic election than 2000.  2000 was a straight generic election, since neither candidate was an incumbent, while 2004 was a referendum on Bush.  Incumbency has certain advantages, even in politically unfriendly territory.

I agree in a 50/50 type election in 2008, you will probably go back to see Rhode Island with a close to 30 pt victory for the Dems
Logged

Jake
dubya2004
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18731
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

View Profile
« Reply #9 on: March 26, 2005, 06:37:14 pm »
Ignore

Catholic swing driven by wedge issues I'd guess.  Don't see a trend at all.
That's funny that the Catholics are turning right about now, cuz Rhode Island historically, since the time it was a small colony was known for being a safe haven when Catholics weren't persecuted for not having Protestant beliefs.  Considering traditionally Protestants prefer Republicans and Catholics prefer Democrats, it is interestinng to see this change.

As long as people vote on social issues, Catholics will vote for the Republican, that is unless the Democrats turn populist on us.
Logged
Smash255
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14368


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: March 26, 2005, 06:48:45 pm »
Ignore

Catholic swing driven by wedge issues I'd guess.  Don't see a trend at all.
That's funny that the Catholics are turning right about now, cuz Rhode Island historically, since the time it was a small colony was known for being a safe haven when Catholics weren't persecuted for not having Protestant beliefs.  Considering traditionally Protestants prefer Republicans and Catholics prefer Democrats, it is interestinng to see this change.

As long as people vote on social issues, Catholics will vote for the Republican, that is unless the Democrats turn populist on us.

Not really, their are many Catholics that are socially liberal (myself included).  Some of the most socially liberal states in the country (R,.I, Mass, Vermont & NY especially the downstate region) are heavily Catholic
Logged

Jake
dubya2004
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18731
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

View Profile
« Reply #11 on: March 26, 2005, 07:11:02 pm »
Ignore

Socially liberal Catholics are in the minority though, just like socially liberal protestants.  The Catholic vote swinging to Bush in New England was masked by Kerry's regional advantage.
Logged
dazzleman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13821
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

View Profile
« Reply #12 on: March 26, 2005, 07:11:35 pm »
Ignore

Catholic swing driven by wedge issues I'd guess.  Don't see a trend at all.
That's funny that the Catholics are turning right about now, cuz Rhode Island historically, since the time it was a small colony was known for being a safe haven when Catholics weren't persecuted for not having Protestant beliefs.  Considering traditionally Protestants prefer Republicans and Catholics prefer Democrats, it is interestinng to see this change.

As long as people vote on social issues, Catholics will vote for the Republican, that is unless the Democrats turn populist on us.

Jake, I think you have to make a distinction between nominal Catholics and practicing Catholics.  Only a certain percentage of nominal Catholics are practicing, and they are the ones most likely to vote Republican.  All my parents' old friends are practicing Catholics, and they all vote Republican.  Always did, by the way.  It's nothing recent.

Most of my friends who are practicing Catholics, or even Christians who take the religion seriously, vote Republican.  The Democratic party is for non-religious people, even if they call themselves Catholic or Christian.
Logged
phk
phknrocket1k
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12975


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

View Profile
« Reply #13 on: March 26, 2005, 07:44:30 pm »
Ignore

Catholic swing driven by wedge issues I'd guess.  Don't see a trend at all.
That's funny that the Catholics are turning right about now, cuz Rhode Island historically, since the time it was a small colony was known for being a safe haven when Catholics weren't persecuted for not having Protestant beliefs.  Considering traditionally Protestants prefer Republicans and Catholics prefer Democrats, it is interestinng to see this change.

As long as people vote on social issues, Catholics will vote for the Republican, that is unless the Democrats turn populist on us.

Jake, I think you have to make a distinction between nominal Catholics and practicing Catholics.  Only a certain percentage of nominal Catholics are practicing, and they are the ones most likely to vote Republican.  All my parents' old friends are practicing Catholics, and they all vote Republican.  Always did, by the way.  It's nothing recent.

Most of my friends who are practicing Catholics, or even Christians who take the religion seriously, vote Republican.  The Democratic party is for non-religious people, even if they call themselves Catholic or Christian.

But "non-religous" folks comprise only 15% of the nation; while Christians comprise 75%. In a rang of 55-45, there certainly are religous Democrats; but they emphasize economic issues and aren't that easily wedge-issue driven.

Its not that black-and-white. One of my best friends is actually a Republican despite him being an all-out athiest. Another one of my friends is very religous and very socially conservative and is still a Democrat, solely because of economic issues.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2005, 07:46:56 pm by Marxism-Leninism-Maoism »Logged

dazzleman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13821
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

View Profile
« Reply #14 on: March 26, 2005, 07:46:03 pm »
Ignore

Catholic swing driven by wedge issues I'd guess.  Don't see a trend at all.
That's funny that the Catholics are turning right about now, cuz Rhode Island historically, since the time it was a small colony was known for being a safe haven when Catholics weren't persecuted for not having Protestant beliefs.  Considering traditionally Protestants prefer Republicans and Catholics prefer Democrats, it is interestinng to see this change.

As long as people vote on social issues, Catholics will vote for the Republican, that is unless the Democrats turn populist on us.

Jake, I think you have to make a distinction between nominal Catholics and practicing Catholics.  Only a certain percentage of nominal Catholics are practicing, and they are the ones most likely to vote Republican.  All my parents' old friends are practicing Catholics, and they all vote Republican.  Always did, by the way.  It's nothing recent.

Most of my friends who are practicing Catholics, or even Christians who take the religion seriously, vote Republican.  The Democratic party is for non-religious people, even if they call themselves Catholic or Christian.

But "non-religous" folks comprise only 15% of the nation; while Christians comprise 75%.

Its not that black-and-white. One of my best friends is actually a Republican despite him being an all-out athiest.

Your definition of religious is not really what I meant.  You have a much more liberal definition of the term.
Logged
King
intermoderate
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 25265
United States


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: March 26, 2005, 07:53:33 pm »
Ignore

Exnaderites for Bush? Tongue
Logged

Smash255
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14368


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: March 26, 2005, 10:05:25 pm »
Ignore

Socially liberal Catholics are in the minority though, just like socially liberal protestants.  The Catholic vote swinging to Bush in New England was masked by Kerry's regional advantage.

Not really.  Most of my friends are Catholic and the vast majority of them are socially liberal, granted most are in their early to mid 20's, but its still true nonetheless
Logged

Jake
dubya2004
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18731
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

View Profile
« Reply #17 on: March 26, 2005, 10:07:05 pm »
Ignore

Socially liberal Catholics are in the minority though, just like socially liberal protestants.  The Catholic vote swinging to Bush in New England was masked by Kerry's regional advantage.

Not really.  Most of my friends are Catholic and the vast majority of them are socially liberal, granted most are in their early to mid 20's, but its still true nonetheless

Actual Catholics.  CINO's, like your friends, may be socially liberal.
Logged
Smash255
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14368


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: March 26, 2005, 11:08:08 pm »
Ignore

Socially liberal Catholics are in the minority though, just like socially liberal protestants.  The Catholic vote swinging to Bush in New England was masked by Kerry's regional advantage.

Not really.  Most of my friends are Catholic and the vast majority of them are socially liberal, granted most are in their early to mid 20's, but its still true nonetheless

Actual Catholics.  CINO's, like your friends, may be socially liberal.

I AM an actual Catholic.  Just because I am socially liberal and don't agree with the church on issues such as abortion & birth control doesn't mean I'm NOT an actual Catholic.  The Catholic Church is also against the Death Penalty.  By a comment like that I assume your Catholic as well and I know your for the Death Penalty.  So by your idiotic generalzations that must mean your a CINO also
Logged

dazzleman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13821
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

View Profile
« Reply #19 on: March 27, 2005, 09:00:06 am »
Ignore

Socially liberal Catholics are in the minority though, just like socially liberal protestants.  The Catholic vote swinging to Bush in New England was masked by Kerry's regional advantage.

Jake, I do think you're overstating this trend.  Many of the Catholics in the northeast are non-practicing, and are socially liberal.  The serious, practicing Catholics are much more conservative, but they're not enough to make up a majority.

I also think that a person from outside the region would have performed roughly as well as Kerry did in the northeast.

Few Catholics agree with the church's position on every issue.  But those who practice lean more conservative, and may support the church's position on abortion and morality in general, but not the death penalty.  These people generally vote Republican.  There's a small minority of serious practicing Catholics who think the Democrats represent the "help the poor" sensibility of the church so much better than the Republicans that they are willing to overlook the hostility of many base Democratic constituencies toward the religion, and vote Democratic.  But as I said, this is a small minority.

Then there is a large contingent of non-practicing but nominal Catholics who support abortion, casual sex, etc., and are essentially part of the unchurched population.  These people largely vote Democratic.
Logged
Sibboleth
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 56807
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #20 on: March 27, 2005, 09:46:40 am »
Ignore

Church attendence in parts of New England is actually pretty high.
Logged

"I have become entangled in my own data, and my conclusion stands in direct contradiction to the initial idea from which I started. Proceeding from unlimited freedom, I end with unlimited despotism. I will add, however, that there can be no solution of the social formula except mine."
dazzleman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13821
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

View Profile
« Reply #21 on: March 27, 2005, 09:51:09 am »
Ignore

Church attendence in parts of New England is actually pretty high.

True, but not high enough, and with a strong enough majority, to counteract (a) the minority who attend church and still vote Democratic; and (b) the rest of the population, which doesn't attend church and votes strongly Democratic.

I was just trying to make the point to Jake that he shouldn't overstate the potential effect of the Catholic vote in the northeast.
Logged
Hitchabrut
republicanjew18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1675


Political Matrix
E: 8.38, S: 7.49

View Profile
« Reply #22 on: March 27, 2005, 10:00:12 am »
Ignore

One problem with this argument about Catholics: Protestants swung to Bush in RI and Catholics stayed at a relatively similar level. This was very unlike the states adjacent to it, but you can see for yourself: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
Logged

Brace yourselves for me.

Economic Left/Right: 7.05
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.67
Sibboleth
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 56807
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #23 on: March 27, 2005, 10:18:31 am »
Ignore

I treat exit polls as an amusement not as facts
Logged

"I have become entangled in my own data, and my conclusion stands in direct contradiction to the initial idea from which I started. Proceeding from unlimited freedom, I end with unlimited despotism. I will add, however, that there can be no solution of the social formula except mine."
dazzleman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13821
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

View Profile
« Reply #24 on: March 27, 2005, 10:45:13 am »
Ignore

One problem with this argument about Catholics: Protestants swung to Bush in RI and Catholics stayed at a relatively similar level. This was very unlike the states adjacent to it, but you can see for yourself: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Great link.  It was kind of interesting to see how poorly Bush performed among Catholics in Rhode Island, even compared to Massachusetts and particularly Connecticut.

Well I always said Connecticut was superior. Smiley  Right now, unfortunately, politically it's just the best of a bad bunch.
Logged
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