Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 22, 2014, 08:27:07 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections (Moderator: Joe Republic)
| | |-+  Kentucky 2003
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: Kentucky 2003  (Read 17700 times)
Dave Leip
leip
Administrator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2299
United States


View Profile WWW
« on: November 04, 2003, 10:47:37 pm »

Kentucky results have been posted in the Gubernatorial section (county data and map are included!).
« Last Edit: November 04, 2003, 10:48:21 pm by Dave Leip »Logged
DarthKosh
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 902


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: November 04, 2003, 11:18:48 pm »
Ignore

Way to go Gov. Fletcher.
Logged
A blast of wind from Howard Stern's ass
Kevinstat
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1317


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: November 05, 2003, 05:52:52 pm »
Ignore

To compare these results with those of the 1999 Gubernatorial election, right click on both of these links and select "Open in New Window".

1999: http://www.uselectionatlas.org/GOVERNOR/GENERAL/gov_state.php?fips=21&year=1999

2003: http://www.uselectionatlas.org/GOVERNOR/GENERAL/gov_state.php?fips=21&year=2003

One thing I've found interesting when comparing the two results is that there are three counties in southeast Kentucky (namely Harlan, Letcher and Perry) that Paul Patton's 1999 Republican challenger, Peppy Martin, carried in that election that Chandler carried yesterday.  Those counties usually vote Democratic, although usually not very strongly (the results there don't seem to have varied as widely as those in much of Kentucky, indicating that both parties have large bases there and that there are not many swing voters), so the real surprise may be that Patton lost them in 1999.  That may have had a lot to do with the strong Reform party candidacy of Gatewood Galbriath, who ran in the high teens to low 20s in the three counties.  Statewide, Galbraith seemed to hurt Martin more than Patton in 1999, allowing Patton to sweep the central portion of the Cumberland Plateau even though he failed to win a majority in several counties there.  I know that Gilbraith has run a few times in the past in the Sixth Congressional district, and it may be that he took more votes from Scotty Baesler than from Fletcher in the close race that wasn't in 2000.  The counties in question are in Hal Roger's 5th district, but they aren't too far from some counties in the 6th.  If anyone can provide any more clues clues as to why Patton lost these counties, and how Chandler won them back, I would appreciate it.

Sincerely, Kevin Lamoreau
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15178
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #3 on: November 06, 2003, 11:46:27 am »
Ignore

Hmm, that's an interesting question, Kevin. The 1999 results in those counties really seem to have been anomalies, as those counties all voted for Gore in 2000 as well. Maybe that is Martin's home area? Either that, or there must have been a particular issue that Democratic voters in that area were angry with Patton about. Otherwise it does seem curious that Martin carried those counties since he got trounced in the rest of the state.
Logged
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35380
United States
View Profile
« Reply #4 on: November 07, 2003, 05:03:16 pm »
Ignore

Thanks for the maps as always, Dave.

Question-Are you making maps for the 2004 Dem primary?  
Logged
Demrepdan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1320


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: November 07, 2003, 06:30:46 pm »
Ignore

Yeah, I'd like to know that as well. Will you be making maps for the 2004 Democratic Primaries as well as the 2004 gubernatorial elections? And what about the 2001 gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey?
« Last Edit: November 07, 2003, 10:08:18 pm by Demrepdan »Logged

Moderately-Liberal Progressive Populist Libertarian Democrat.
Dave Leip
leip
Administrator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2299
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: November 08, 2003, 09:29:40 am »

You Betcha!  The whole primary schedule will be available soon (as a link from the Primary pulldown menu in the "Election Results" section) with pages dedicated to each state (I will not be covering the Republican primaries).  

2004 Gubernatorial (as well as the 2000 Gubernatorial) results will also be covered.  I am targeting completion of the 2000 Gubernatorial results in the spring time frame.

Dave
Logged
rbt48
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 755


View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 10, 2003, 11:49:21 pm »
Ignore

Say, does anyone know when Kentucky elects its state legislators?  Neither the State Senate nor State House of Representatives were up for election this year.  Perhaps they are elected for 4 year terms 2 years after the governorship election, but I do not know the answer.
Logged

Demrepdan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1320


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: November 11, 2003, 12:42:29 am »
Ignore

Say, does anyone know when Kentucky elects its state legislators?  Neither the State Senate nor State House of Representatives were up for election this year.  Perhaps they are elected for 4 year terms 2 years after the governorship election, but I do not know the answer.

After having checked the election results from the past Kentucky elections, I have noticed that the Kentucky House and the Kentucky Senate were both up for election in both the 2000 election and the 2002 elections, but NOT the 2001 or 2003. Therefore I think it is safe to assume that the State Assembly has an election on every even-numberd year, whilst the Gubernatorial elections and the other elected state officials have their elections on an odd-numbered year every four years from 2003. My information was gathered from:  http://www.kysos.com/Elecfil/PastResults/pastresultsindex.asp  

If you would like to view this yourself.

On a side note, Kentucky has 100 State Representatives (who serve 2 year terms) and 38 State Senators (who serve 4 year terms).
« Last Edit: November 11, 2003, 02:03:50 am by Demrepdan »Logged

Moderately-Liberal Progressive Populist Libertarian Democrat.
A blast of wind from Howard Stern's ass
Kevinstat
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1317


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: November 11, 2003, 09:34:09 am »
Ignore

Demrepdan,

That is interesting.  It seems like State legislative elections in Kentucky were held in odd years until the 80s, but the first State Representative election after 1981 was in 1984 and the first State Senate election after 1983 was in 1986.  It does seem kind of wierd for a state's Gubernatorial and legislative elections to be in different years, but half the legislative elections in most states are in different years anyway, and there would probably be very low turnout on the elections two years before and after Gubernatorial elections, where there are no Presidential or Congressional contests.

Sincerely,

Kevin Lamoreau
Logged
rbt48
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 755


View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 11, 2003, 04:56:51 pm »
Ignore

Demrepdan,
My thanks to you for your thorough research.  When I was in college at U Ky in the late 60s (the last time they elected a Republican to the governorship, by the way), the legislative elections were held in odd numbered years.  It is interesting that they moved them to even numbered years, but I am sure it has improved turnout, especially for the vote that used to occur mid-way between governorship races.  I also recall that they used to elect about twice as many cabinet offices as they do today.

It is interesting how the partisan balance of the two chambers is so starkly different.  (http://www.ncsl.org/ncsldb/elect98/partcomp.cfm?yearsel=2003)  It is kind of like New York in terms of the magnitude of the difference.
Logged

Bandit3 the Worker
bandit73
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4703
Venezuela


Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -9.92

View Profile
« Reply #11 on: November 16, 2003, 11:58:21 pm »
Ignore

I can explain what happened in Kentucky in 1999.

Peppy Martin was shunned by the Republican establishment because she was a loose cannon - in addition to being not conservative enough to appease Republican leaders. The party didn't want to spend money on her campaign, since they knew she was going to lose anyway.

The reason she carried several heavily Democratic counties is that coal miners there were angry about Paul Patton's "reform" of the workers comp system.
Logged

Try this wonderful POPULIST BLOG...

http://onlinelunchpail.blogspot.com
Sibboleth Bist
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 56189
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: November 17, 2003, 01:03:43 pm »
Ignore

A bit like WV in 2000?
Logged

Bandit3 the Worker
bandit73
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4703
Venezuela


Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -9.92

View Profile
« Reply #13 on: November 17, 2003, 01:49:44 pm »
Ignore

I don't know what the deal with West Virginia was. I was told that the United Mine Workers endorsed Buchanan for President, but I have no idea what led them to do that. Nader would have been a much better choice. (He was popular among industrial workers elsewhere.)
Logged

Try this wonderful POPULIST BLOG...

http://onlinelunchpail.blogspot.com
Sibboleth Bist
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 56189
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #14 on: November 17, 2003, 02:45:42 pm »
Ignore

Never piss off a miner Smiley
Logged

Sibboleth Bist
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 56189
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #15 on: November 17, 2003, 03:11:37 pm »
Ignore

Actually this brings up the fact that in several states in 2000 the Democrat vote was seriously understated because of Gore's baggage on various issues etc.
At the same time his vote may have been exaggerated in other states.
Off the top of my head:

Depressed Democrat vote:

West Virgina: Coal Mining, Gun control
Arkansas: Gore's attempts to distance himself from Clinton
Virgina: Tobacco, Coal Mining, Gun control
North Carolina: Tobacco, Gun control
Kentucky: Tobacco, Coal Mining, Gun control
Montana: Gun control

Depressed GOP vote:

New York: Bush's social conservatism
Connecticut: ditto
Arizona: The "McCain" effect
Logged

Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15178
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #16 on: November 17, 2003, 05:30:24 pm »
Ignore

I don't know if the Democrat vote was depressed in Virginia...Gore actually didn't do that badly for a Democrat there (only lost by 8 points) and the shift toward the GOP from 1996 was less than the national average. Gore's vote may have been depressed in rural Virginia, but he did pretty well in the DC suburbs (just as he did in most other suburbs of large cities). In Connecticut, another factor was that Lieberman was on the Dem ticket as Gore's running mate.
Logged
Bandit3 the Worker
bandit73
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4703
Venezuela


Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -9.92

View Profile
« Reply #17 on: November 17, 2003, 11:55:04 pm »
Ignore

The 2000 "election" was a paradox.

The most economically depressed areas trended Republican, while economically prosperous areas trended Democratic.

It made no sense whatsoever.
Logged

Try this wonderful POPULIST BLOG...

http://onlinelunchpail.blogspot.com
Sibboleth Bist
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 56189
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: November 18, 2003, 04:01:58 am »
Ignore

I don't know if the Democrat vote was depressed in Virginia...Gore actually didn't do that badly for a Democrat there (only lost by 8 points) and the shift toward the GOP from 1996 was less than the national average. Gore's vote may have been depressed in rural Virginia, but he did pretty well in the DC suburbs (just as he did in most other suburbs of large cities). In Connecticut, another factor was that Lieberman was on the Dem ticket as Gore's running mate.

It wasn't depressed as bad as in WV, but in district 9(a Democrat stronghold) Gore did terribly only winning 3 counties and a city.
A better preformance in the 9th could have carried the state.
But in the long run Virgina is swinging back towards the Dems anyway Smiley
Logged

Sibboleth Bist
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 56189
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #19 on: November 18, 2003, 04:15:43 am »
Ignore

The 2000 "election" was a paradox.

The most economically depressed areas trended Republican, while economically prosperous areas trended Democratic.

It made no sense whatsoever.

True... it was a weird election.

However if the mid terms are anything to go by, this has ceased to be the case.
And then there is the anti-incumbency factor at the moment...

The most economically depressed part of the US is the Upper South, and it should be fertile ground for the Dems in 2004(especially if the E.U retaliates in the Tarrif-War).

WV, NC, VA, AR, KY and TN could all be Dem gains in 2004.
Logged

nclib
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8759


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: November 21, 2003, 04:13:48 pm »
Ignore

I don't know if the Democrat vote was depressed in Virginia...Gore actually didn't do that badly for a Democrat there (only lost by 8 points) and the shift toward the GOP from 1996 was less than the national average. Gore's vote may have been depressed in rural Virginia, but he did pretty well in the DC suburbs (just as he did in most other suburbs of large cities). In Connecticut, another factor was that Lieberman was on the Dem ticket as Gore's running mate.

It wasn't depressed as bad as in WV, but in district 9(a Democrat stronghold) Gore did terribly only winning 3 counties and a city.
A better preformance in the 9th could have carried the state.
But in the long run Virgina is swinging back towards the Dems anyway Smiley

Even with a better performance in VA 9, Gore would have still lost the state. Bush won the rest of VA by 194,265 votes, and only 214,379 votes were cast in VA 9. In other words, keeping everything else the same, Gore would have had to have won 91% in VA 9 to win the state.

No Dem will win VA in a 50-50 election, but in a election with a margin of victory like Clinton's, targeting VA may be worthwhile. Rural VA is, if anything, tilting Republican, but Northern VA has shifted to the Dems.
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

JNB
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 395


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: November 21, 2003, 04:35:00 pm »
Ignore


  Bush did as well as could be expected in N. Virginia in 2000, he took a plurality of votes in Fairfax county, and won N. Va overall with 50% of the vote. While its around 10% less than what his father did 10 years before, considering the demographic changes that have taken place there, that is not a bad result at all. Where Bush under performed was in Norfolk-Virginia Beach region of the state and in rural portions of the state. In part due to t he fact black turnout was a bit higher in 2000 than it was in 88, and also in part the vote of white Evangelicals was depressed in 2000. The last minuite DUI busienss really hurt Bush in this group.
Logged

Economic Left/Right: -1.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 5.23
Sibboleth Bist
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 56189
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #22 on: November 22, 2003, 06:04:58 am »
Ignore

As far as VA-9 goes, that was just Hyperbole to make a point Wink

But I think that the Dems do have an excellent chance in VA next election... but it depends on the candidate.

In 2000 VA did not vote as solidly GOP as everyone thought it would, Bush's margin was under 10%

VA as a whole is (slowly) trending back towards the Dems, as is evidenced by them having a net gain in the State Assembly for the first time in about 30 years.

The Upper South as a whole looks promising for the Dems next election.
As long as they don't pick someone like Kerry...
Logged

JNB
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 395


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: November 22, 2003, 02:09:52 pm »
Ignore


 Realpolitik, the GOP in the VA state house went from 65 seats(64 GOP + 1 independent who votes with the GOP) to 62 seats, one of those seats lost was a mostly black district in Norfolk gained by a fluke, and the other two were in Fairfax county, both barely lost. The GOP in VA did gain ground in the VA state senate, by gaining 1 seat, and almost gained 2 more.

  Realpolitik, the Dems have little chance at winning VA next year, and the VA Republican party is advanced enough to put in place the 72 get out the vote plan. You also need to look at the details, and not just accept spin at face value. The GOP still has close to super majority status in the VA state house, and again, I gave you the factors that in 200o that led to the underformance of the Bush ticket.
Logged

Economic Left/Right: -1.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 5.23
Sibboleth Bist
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 56189
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #24 on: November 22, 2003, 03:28:15 pm »
Ignore

I'm not predicting anything.

I think that the Dem vote in VA was depressed... you disagree.

We have to agree to disagree.
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