which party has the bigger problem?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 12:06:23 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  which party has the bigger problem?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
Poll
Question: which will be harder to overcome?
#1
republicans inabilty to win northeastern states
 
#2
democrats inability to win southeastern states.
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 107

Author Topic: which party has the bigger problem?  (Read 16279 times)
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #75 on: August 25, 2005, 10:10:38 PM »


Social conservativism is still pretty strong there, too.

I'm sensing that the Repubs up there are more along the lines of Charlie Dent, not Santoomey.  The economic populism is dying there I'll admit, but I'm also sensing a libertarian trend in that region in general.  That's why I think the Dems are holding on there at the presidential level.  Remember, I have said this before and I'll say it again- Democratic districts are by and large more Democratic than Republican districts are Republican.  The PA GOP can spead itself out better while the Dems are more dense.  Look at PA 132 (Mann) and PA 131 (Beyer, used to be Browne).  Mann's district is incredibly Demcoratic, say 75% while Beyer's is even, lean GOP.  This trend also holds true in Philadelphia.  You based NE Philly on being pro-life on 6 out of 8 districts having pro-life Reps.  Well, you can spaghetti string Crestmont Farms, Morrell Park, Parkwood, the more conservative areas of Somerton down to Fox Chase in one district thus effectively forcing O'Brien, Kenney into a primary battle and neutralizing Fox Chase at the same time.  You could also plop Perzel's base and spaghetti string a corridor down Harbison/Aramingo Ave to Taylor's base creating a Perzel-Taylor primary.  You do that I guarantee you will have 6 out of 8 pro-choice delegates from NE Philly in Harrisburg!  Boy would that be fun if we were to ever take back the PA House.

Wrong. If you look at the GOP primary, Dent got 52% and the two other conservative challengers made up the other 48%. Dent could have had a more serious challenge if O'Neill didn't run. The district is more Santoomey. PA 15 is not libertarian. Stop making it seem better for you. Toomey totally destroyed Specter there in the GOP primary so there's no arguing that the area GOP is more moderate and if you say the Democrats there are socially liberal, you've lost it.

Good luck taking back the State House anytime soon.
Logged
danwxman
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,532


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #76 on: August 25, 2005, 10:16:58 PM »


Social conservativism is still pretty strong there, too.

I'm sensing that the Repubs up there are more along the lines of Charlie Dent, not Santoomey.  The economic populism is dying there I'll admit, but I'm also sensing a libertarian trend in that region in general.  That's why I think the Dems are holding on there at the presidential level.  Remember, I have said this before and I'll say it again- Democratic districts are by and large more Democratic than Republican districts are Republican.  The PA GOP can spead itself out better while the Dems are more dense.  Look at PA 132 (Mann) and PA 131 (Beyer, used to be Browne).  Mann's district is incredibly Demcoratic, say 75% while Beyer's is even, lean GOP.  This trend also holds true in Philadelphia.  You based NE Philly on being pro-life on 6 out of 8 districts having pro-life Reps.  Well, you can spaghetti string Crestmont Farms, Morrell Park, Parkwood, the more conservative areas of Somerton down to Fox Chase in one district thus effectively forcing O'Brien, Kenney into a primary battle and neutralizing Fox Chase at the same time.  You could also plop Perzel's base and spaghetti string a corridor down Harbison/Aramingo Ave to Taylor's base creating a Perzel-Taylor primary.  You do that I guarantee you will have 6 out of 8 pro-choice delegates from NE Philly in Harrisburg!  Boy would that be fun if we were to ever take back the PA House.

Wrong. If you look at the GOP primary, Dent got 52% and the two other conservative challengers made up the other 48%. Dent could have had a more serious challenge if O'Neill didn't run. The district is more Santoomey. PA 15 is not libertarian. Stop making it seem better for you. Toomey totally destroyed Specter there in the GOP primary so there's no arguing that the area GOP is more moderate and if you say the Democrats there are socially liberal, you've lost it.

Good luck taking back the State House anytime soon.

Quite honestly, I don't want the Democrats or the Republicans controlling the state assembly anymore. DeWeese is mentally retarded, and the Republican leadership is full of stuck-up fatcats who think they deserve more money while simultaneously trying to hurt the poor with an expanded sales tax.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #77 on: August 26, 2005, 12:14:25 AM »


Social conservativism is still pretty strong there, too.

I'm sensing that the Repubs up there are more along the lines of Charlie Dent, not Santoomey.  The economic populism is dying there I'll admit, but I'm also sensing a libertarian trend in that region in general.  That's why I think the Dems are holding on there at the presidential level.  Remember, I have said this before and I'll say it again- Democratic districts are by and large more Democratic than Republican districts are Republican.  The PA GOP can spead itself out better while the Dems are more dense.  Look at PA 132 (Mann) and PA 131 (Beyer, used to be Browne).  Mann's district is incredibly Demcoratic, say 75% while Beyer's is even, lean GOP.  This trend also holds true in Philadelphia.  You based NE Philly on being pro-life on 6 out of 8 districts having pro-life Reps.  Well, you can spaghetti string Crestmont Farms, Morrell Park, Parkwood, the more conservative areas of Somerton down to Fox Chase in one district thus effectively forcing O'Brien, Kenney into a primary battle and neutralizing Fox Chase at the same time.  You could also plop Perzel's base and spaghetti string a corridor down Harbison/Aramingo Ave to Taylor's base creating a Perzel-Taylor primary.  You do that I guarantee you will have 6 out of 8 pro-choice delegates from NE Philly in Harrisburg!  Boy would that be fun if we were to ever take back the PA House.

Wrong. If you look at the GOP primary, Dent got 52% and the two other conservative challengers made up the other 48%. Dent could have had a more serious challenge if O'Neill didn't run. The district is more Santoomey. PA 15 is not libertarian. Stop making it seem better for you. Toomey totally destroyed Specter there in the GOP primary so there's no arguing that the area GOP is more moderate and if you say the Democrats there are socially liberal, you've lost it.

Good luck taking back the State House anytime soon.

Quite honestly, I don't want the Democrats or the Republicans controlling the state assembly anymore. DeWeese is mentally retarded, and the Republican leadership is full of stuck-up fatcats who think they deserve more money while simultaneously trying to hurt the poor with an expanded sales tax.

I agree with you whole heartedly.  When it comes to the state legislature in PA, I wish we would just toss all the bastards out.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #78 on: August 26, 2005, 04:50:22 PM »

I can't stand DeWeese and a number of others but I don't think the body itself is all that bad.
Logged
TeePee4Prez
Flyers2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,480


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #79 on: August 27, 2005, 11:05:05 PM »

I can't stand DeWeese and a number of others but I don't think the body itself is all that bad.

Yes it is both Dem and Rep.  DeWeese is a moron and is killing us Dems.  The entire Northeast Philadelphia delegation should be booted out barring Mark Cohen as well.  I know he has a bit of a speech impediment, but I admire Cohen for his balls and speaking his mind.  I'll even include John Taylor plus his 3 other GOP clowns in this equation considering they have been in there 20+ years and have done very little.  I am also not sparing Democrat Bill Rieger who should have retired 20 years ago for he needs to be carried in with an oxygen mask and should be in a home plus I am no fan of Mike McGeehan.  And of course Alan Butkovitz, who I kinda like, is going to be Controller of Philly.  Time for some young blood in there! 

I want more of Josh Shapiro, Mark Cohen, Mike Gerber, and Jennifer Mann in the PA State House.  On anotehr note, is it just me or are Jewish politicans just better? 
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #80 on: August 27, 2005, 11:32:29 PM »

My state Rep. Sam Smith is the majority leader, so one would think that I would want him to stay in.  But, if he has a primary opponent, I'll vote against him.  I've had enough of the inept bullsh**t that is the PA state Republican party.  Esspecially with this latest pay raise.  If you knew how much corrupt politicing went into this.  They basically forced Republican Reps to vote for it or else lose party backing.  They leaned extra hard on a group of Reps here in the north that the party has all but declared they don't like, gee, wonder why they did that?
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #81 on: August 27, 2005, 11:37:10 PM »

My state Rep. Sam Smith is the majority leader, so one would think that I would want him to stay in.  But, if he has a primary opponent, I'll vote against him.  I've had enough of the inept bullsh**t that is the PA state Republican party.  Esspecially with this latest pay raise.  If you knew how much corrupt politicing went into this.  They basically forced Republican Reps to vote for it or else lose party backing.  They leaned extra hard on a group of Reps here in the north that the party has all but declared they don't like, gee, wonder why they did that?

What do you think of Feingold? He always votes against pay raises.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #82 on: August 28, 2005, 12:00:42 AM »

Funny how yet another thread got hijacked by the Pennsylvanians. Damn Pennsylvanians, they try to steal everything from us...damn...*mutters incoherently to self*
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #83 on: August 29, 2005, 01:03:41 AM »

I can't stand DeWeese and a number of others but I don't think the body itself is all that bad.

Yes it is both Dem and Rep.  DeWeese is a moron and is killing us Dems.  The entire Northeast Philadelphia delegation should be booted out barring Mark Cohen as well.  I know he has a bit of a speech impediment, but I admire Cohen for his balls and speaking his mind.  I'll even include John Taylor plus his 3 other GOP clowns in this equation considering they have been in there 20+ years and have done very little.  I am also not sparing Democrat Bill Rieger who should have retired 20 years ago for he needs to be carried in with an oxygen mask and should be in a home plus I am no fan of Mike McGeehan.  And of course Alan Butkovitz, who I kinda like, is going to be Controller of Philly.  Time for some young blood in there! 

I want more of Josh Shapiro, Mark Cohen, Mike Gerber, and Jennifer Mann in the PA State House.  On anotehr note, is it just me or are Jewish politicans just better? 

Rieger is scum. The guy lives just a few minutes from me yet represents North Philly and is notorious for his ghost voting.

Are Jewish politicians better? Since they tend to be liberal, of course you'll think they're better.

I don't mind the NE Philly GOP delegation. I like O'Brien and Taylor. I don't follow/just don't care about Kenney that much. It'll certainly be pretty weird when they all retire and we get some new representation. We've grown up with these Representatives, most of which have been in office for over twenty years. Whether you like them or not, it'll be difficult getting used to them not being around.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #84 on: August 29, 2005, 03:08:03 AM »

The problem with analizing the trend of TX is that there's been a George Bush of TX on the GOP ticket for 6 of the last 7 elections, and then there was LBJ on the Democratic ticket in the '60s. Some of the shift from 1964 to 2004 can be explained by home states.

When LBJ was on the national ticket in the 1960s, the Republican Party in Texas was barely functional.

When George W. Bush was on the ticket in 2000 and 2004, the Democratic Party in Texas has been barely functional.

If in 2008, we were to start off with a standard liberal Democrat and a standard conservative Republican in Texas, in a best case scenario you will get numbers of roughly 55% for Republicans and 45% for Democrats (the statewide race I would compare to that is Cornyn v. Kirk Senate 2002).  Dole in 1996 (won the state with 48%) would have probably gotten 53%-54% in Texas without Perot, and the state has trended slightly Republican since then (my best guess).

A Southern Democrat on the ticket could add a couple of points his way, but in order to have a chance to win, you would probably need a pretty liberal Republican candidate added on top. 

And all of this stuff is not set in stone either.  A Southern conservative Democrat will have certain problems in the Northeast.  A more moderate, outside the South Republican would have certain problems in the South.

All in all, I would pay attention to Al's maps.  They tell the biggest story.
Logged
TeePee4Prez
Flyers2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,480


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #85 on: August 30, 2005, 03:15:11 AM »

I can't stand DeWeese and a number of others but I don't think the body itself is all that bad.

Yes it is both Dem and Rep.  DeWeese is a moron and is killing us Dems.  The entire Northeast Philadelphia delegation should be booted out barring Mark Cohen as well.  I know he has a bit of a speech impediment, but I admire Cohen for his balls and speaking his mind.  I'll even include John Taylor plus his 3 other GOP clowns in this equation considering they have been in there 20+ years and have done very little.  I am also not sparing Democrat Bill Rieger who should have retired 20 years ago for he needs to be carried in with an oxygen mask and should be in a home plus I am no fan of Mike McGeehan.  And of course Alan Butkovitz, who I kinda like, is going to be Controller of Philly.  Time for some young blood in there! 

I want more of Josh Shapiro, Mark Cohen, Mike Gerber, and Jennifer Mann in the PA State House.  On anotehr note, is it just me or are Jewish politicans just better? 

Rieger is scum. The guy lives just a few minutes from me yet represents North Philly and is notorious for his ghost voting.

Are Jewish politicians better? Since they tend to be liberal, of course you'll think they're better.

I don't mind the NE Philly GOP delegation. I like O'Brien and Taylor. I don't follow/just don't care about Kenney that much. It'll certainly be pretty weird when they all retire and we get some new representation. We've grown up with these Representatives, most of which have been in office for over twenty years. Whether you like them or not, it'll be difficult getting used to them not being around.

Rieger should retire.  I would have liked to see Raphael Collazo win that seat.  Actually his seat tweaked its way into Northwood/Frankford area since Perzel vacated that area.

As for the Irishmen representing NE Philly well, economically they aren't all that far off from me but socially, I think they are waaay to parochial for my liking.  I will include Mike McGeehan(D) in this, but that's only on social issues.

I was just pointing out about Jewish pols Cohen, Butkovitz, and Shapiro being fairly close to me politically both economically and socially.  I just checked my nose size, not Jewish!
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,350


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #86 on: April 21, 2018, 01:56:32 PM »

The problem with analizing the trend of TX is that there's been a George Bush of TX on the GOP ticket for 6 of the last 7 elections, and then there was LBJ on the Democratic ticket in the '60s. Some of the shift from 1964 to 2004 can be explained by home states.

When LBJ was on the national ticket in the 1960s, the Republican Party in Texas was barely functional.

When George W. Bush was on the ticket in 2000 and 2004, the Democratic Party in Texas has been barely functional.

If in 2008, we were to start off with a standard liberal Democrat and a standard conservative Republican in Texas, in a best case scenario you will get numbers of roughly 55% for Republicans and 45% for Democrats (the statewide race I would compare to that is Cornyn v. Kirk Senate 2002).  Dole in 1996 (won the state with 48%) would have probably gotten 53%-54% in Texas without Perot, and the state has trended slightly Republican since then (my best guess).

A Southern Democrat on the ticket could add a couple of points his way, but in order to have a chance to win, you would probably need a pretty liberal Republican candidate added on top.  

And all of this stuff is not set in stone either.  A Southern conservative Democrat will have certain problems in the Northeast.  A more moderate, outside the South Republican would have certain problems in the South.

All in all, I would pay attention to Al's maps.  They tell the biggest story.


Turned out to be the worst case scenario for the GOP even in 2016 when Republican nominee was not a standard one
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,350


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #87 on: April 21, 2018, 01:57:54 PM »
« Edited: April 21, 2018, 02:03:57 PM by Old School Republican »


Wow have things changed a lot
Logged
DPKdebator
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,076
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.81, S: 3.65

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #88 on: April 21, 2018, 10:01:19 PM »

ITT: TX and NC will never trend Democratic; PA/WI is a lock for the Dems.
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,509
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #89 on: April 21, 2018, 11:45:16 PM »

Funny to see this thread was started on my 23rd birthday.   
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,622
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #90 on: April 22, 2018, 10:49:55 PM »

So...the guys saying the Northeast is more of a problem for Republicans than the Southeast is for Democrats were right, yes? VA is now Leans D at worst, Obama carried NC once and its down to Leans R from nearly-safe in 2005, and Florida remains a tossup, while Republicans haven't really done any better in the Northeast than they did then (Trump lost NH and Republicans have lost their Senators there; he did win PA, but the GOP no longer has both Senators there, like they did in 2005, and seem on track for a large defeat in 2018).

But the guys saying Kerry states were Safe D in perpetuity were just as hilariously wrong in 2005 as they remained a decade later.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,350


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #91 on: April 22, 2018, 11:04:37 PM »

ITT: TX and NC will never trend Democratic; PA/WI is a lock for the Dems.


Since Bush barely lost WI in 04 and lost PA by only a few points that point was wrong even then.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #92 on: April 25, 2018, 10:27:29 PM »

Contrarian view: Democrats, because even with the various trends in their favor, they now have to win by almost 10 to control anything. 
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #93 on: April 25, 2018, 10:36:18 PM »

Contrarian view: Democrats, because even with the various trends in their favor, they now have to win by almost 10 to control anything.  

If you're talking about the House popular vote, it's not necessarily 10 and it wouldn't always be 10. There are some estimates that say Democrats could flip the House with as few as 5-6 points, although the more common number is 7. I've only seen one analysis mention >= 10 before, and I still think that is much too high.

Also, this high number is what it would take to flip the chamber, not maintain an existing majority. The incumbency advantage accounts for some of that larger margin, which would be reversed if Democrats won, say, a 230 majority. Then it might be the case that Democrats could hold the House with a smaller margin.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #94 on: April 26, 2018, 12:38:39 AM »

Contrarian view: Democrats, because even with the various trends in their favor, they now have to win by almost 10 to control anything.  

If you're talking about the House popular vote, it's not necessarily 10 and it wouldn't always be 10. There are some estimates that say Democrats could flip the House with as few as 5-6 points, although the more common number is 7. I've only seen one analysis mention >= 10 before, and I still think that is much too high.

Also, this high number is what it would take to flip the chamber, not maintain an existing majority. The incumbency advantage accounts for some of that larger margin, which would be reversed if Democrats won, say, a 230 majority. Then it might be the case that Democrats could hold the House with a smaller margin.

The House is less skewed than 10%, but plenty of state legislatures in swing states would require a double digit win to take control (e.g. Michigan), and if you are assuming TX, GA, AZ, et al. move further to the center, this becomes an even bigger problem until they are actually voting left of the nationwide vote because they are all big states.  The Senate basically requires a double digit PV win in 2018 or 2020.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]  
« 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 0.055 seconds with 15 queries.