Decline and Fall
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 02:50:56 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate
  Political Essays & Deliberation (Moderator: Torie)
  Decline and Fall
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Decline and Fall  (Read 4472 times)
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 25, 2005, 09:10:09 AM »
« edited: August 25, 2005, 09:26:03 AM by Attorney General Al »

The other day while I was browsing through the Atlas, I noticed *quite* how dramatic the Democratic collapse in Texas has been between 1996 and 2004:



The strong falls in West Texas (in one county from over 50% to under 30%) and South Texas (where the massive Democratic wins of the past have all but vanished) are especially interesting IMO.

It's also interesting to note that despite being much stronger or weaker in some areas than others, the falls seem to have little to do with obvious demographic patterns; the Democratic vote has collapsed badly in both affluent and dirt poor counties, in white counties and in heavily Hispanic counties.
Areas with large renting populations have seen as large drops as largely owner-occupied areas. There's no link with poverty, house prices or education.
There appears to be no link whatsover to ancestory or cultural regions; falls in largely German counties have been as hard as largely "American" counties. There doesn't seem to be much of a link with religion; both Baptist and Catholic counties have seen large falls.
Perhaps most suprisingly there isn't even a clear link between population size and the falls; even in some heavily populated counties the fall in the Democratic % has been huge.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 25, 2005, 02:02:16 PM »
« Edited: August 25, 2005, 02:40:34 PM by Alcon »

Very nice...any chance you can provide a % change (fall) map?

EDIT:  That might be difficult, though...unless you do an overlay of the maps.  If only there was an Atlas script to do that, but that would be rather complex.
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,388
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 25, 2005, 09:45:48 PM »

Very nice...any chance you can provide a % change (fall) map?

EDIT:  That might be difficult, though...unless you do an overlay of the maps.  If only there was an Atlas script to do that, but that would be rather complex.

I was bored, so I did it by hand, as I could not for the life of me find any other way.

Here's the percentage change in Democratic support in Texas (blue is down, red is up):



There were only four counties in which Democratic support actually increased: Dallas, Fort Bend, Loving and Travis.

I won't do any analysis of this; I'll leave this up to you guys. Smiley
Logged
Colin
ColinW
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,684
Papua New Guinea


Political Matrix
E: 3.87, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 25, 2005, 09:53:34 PM »

Well Loving should be discounted due to it being a county of only 80 people.

Oh and Jfern I'm sure you would find the same results if you compared 1992 to 2000 or 2004 as well.
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,388
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 25, 2005, 10:33:59 PM »

1992 looked like this:



Even with a George Bush on the ballot, this still bears a lot more resemblance to 1996 than to 2004.
Logged
Fmr. Gov. NickG
NickG
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,150


Political Matrix
E: -8.00, S: -3.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 25, 2005, 11:59:37 PM »


Clinton was a legitimate Southerner; John Kerry obviously was not.  So I don't see how you can compare a race between a Southern Democrat and a non-Southern Republican (either 1992 or 1996) with a race between a liberal New Englander and the Governor of Texas.

Texas will be an interesting state in the future now that it is majority-minority, unless the GOP finds another way to appeal to Hispanics (GWB was actually pretty good at this).  Not that it will become a swing state, but it will look more like '96 than '04.
Logged
AuH2O
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,239


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 30, 2005, 01:18:54 AM »

Might be useful to look at Oklahoma as well, since north Texas is so similar. Looks from a cursory glance like Democrats suffered similarly severe reverses in the Sooner state.
Logged
Cubby
Pim Fortuyn
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,067
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -3.74, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 06, 2005, 12:38:55 AM »

The home state of a Nominee always has exagerated election returns. This happened with Georgia in '76, Arkansas in '92, Kansas in '96, and Texas in the last 2 elections.  The next election will be a more useful comparison since (hopefully!) the nominee won't be from Texas.
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,388
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 08, 2005, 10:15:07 PM »

The home state of a Nominee always has exagerated election returns. This happened with Georgia in '76, Arkansas in '92, Kansas in '96, and Texas in the last 2 elections.  The next election will be a more useful comparison since (hopefully!) the nominee won't be from Texas.

The nominee was from Texas in 1992, and Democratic support for Clinton was almost as high as it was in 1996.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 08, 2005, 10:25:35 PM »

And Gore was a southerner as well.  Edwards too (and with a more authentic accent).
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 09, 2005, 11:04:37 AM »

The home state of a Nominee always has exagerated election returns. This happened with Georgia in '76, Arkansas in '92, Kansas in '96, and Texas in the last 2 elections.  The next election will be a more useful comparison since (hopefully!) the nominee won't be from Texas.

The nominee was from Texas in 1992, and Democratic support for Clinton was almost as high as it was in 1996.

I agree with all that.  It's hard to look at 1992 (2 of 3 major candidates claimed TX as their homestate), or 2000, or 2004.  You can compare 1996 to 2008, once that's available, assuming no major Presidential or VP candidate claims TX as his home state.  Just have to wait for the objective comparison, Al. 

I suppose we could analyze how the TX delegation went from 17D, 15R in 2002 to 11D, 21R in 2004, a six-seat change in just two years, but then we both know who was behind that. 

(either one control freak, or 51 childish state legislators, depending on your view  Smiley  )
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,270


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: October 18, 2005, 05:43:09 PM »

GOP dominance in Texas, and Democratic collapse, extends far beyond Presidential votes for the favorite son.  I'd guess that state house races and congressional voting would show similar shifts, given that the GOP has gained seats in both areas in the last en years.

Majority Minority or not, Texas is a GOP stronghold for the forseeable future.
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 0.224 seconds with 14 queries.