Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 01, 2014, 12:50:58 am
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)
| | |-+  Do you see any major shifts in the next decade?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] Print
Author Topic: Do you see any major shifts in the next decade?  (Read 7717 times)
HardRCafé
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4403
Italy
View Profile
« Reply #50 on: April 06, 2007, 02:52:35 am »
Ignore

To say that MI could go republican is like saying that Illinois could go republican.  Both states were a win for Daddy Bush, and been Dem ever since.  MI has more republicans at the state level due to gerrymandering, but republicans are in a slump as far as anything statewide.  We have republicans on the state level who go to Lansing with only a fraction of the number of votes a Democrat receives in another disrict.  I forgot exactly what the numbers were, but Democrats won far more votes than republican in '06 for State Senate, but the Republicans are still in charge of that chamber.

This is a waste of time, but:

Michigan was close in 2000, 2002, and 2004.  Illinois almost went to Dukakis in 1988 and has been more and more Democrat ever since.  There can be no comparison.
Logged

Adlai Stevenson
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3438
United Kingdom


View Profile WWW
« Reply #51 on: April 06, 2007, 08:47:54 am »
Ignore

Does anyone want to take a stab at guessing the swing map from 2004-2008, compared to the national average?

For a start, NJ, NY, and CT will trend towards Dems without the 9/11 bump. Also, Louisiana will trend GOP with a smaller black population.

In a Clinton vs. Giuliani matchup:

NEW YORK
Clinton (D) 58%
Giuliani (R) 40%


NEW JERSEY
Clinton (D) 52%
Giuliani (R) 47%


CONNECTICUT
Clinton (D) 55%
Giuliani (R) 43%


LOUISIANA
Giuliani (R) 59%
Clinton (D) 40%
Logged

[img/http://blog.pennlive.com/thrive/2007/08/WINEHOUSE1.jpgimg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpJQq8MoR-g
Kevin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4862
United States


View Profile
« Reply #52 on: April 06, 2007, 08:53:39 am »
Ignore

Does anyone want to take a stab at guessing the swing map from 2004-2008, compared to the national average?

For a start, NJ, NY, and CT will trend towards Dems without the 9/11 bump. Also, Louisiana will trend GOP with a smaller black population.

In a Clinton vs. Giuliani matchup:

NEW YORK
Clinton (D) 58%
Giuliani (R) 40%


NEW JERSEY
Clinton (D) 52%
Giuliani (R) 47%


CONNECTICUT
Clinton (D) 55%
Giuliani (R) 43%


LOUISIANA
Giuliani (R) 59%
Clinton (D) 40%

I think Rudy may do slightly better then Bush did in 04 in the Northeastern states you listed, However he still would not carry any of them except maybe NH and PA. 
Logged

Boris
boris78
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6947
Netherlands


Political Matrix
E: -1.55, S: -4.52

P
View Profile WWW
« Reply #53 on: April 06, 2007, 10:39:36 am »
Ignore

Same here. I believe that when you look at presidential election trends since 1992, Oregon ranks like 4th in the nation when it comes to trending Democrat.

Considering Dukakis did better there than Gore or Kerry:  how?

Since 1992. Dukakis ran for President in 1988.
Logged

tarheel-leftist85
krustytheklown
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1263
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.90, S: -0.70

View Profile
« Reply #54 on: April 06, 2007, 09:23:23 pm »
Ignore


80% red = trending Dem. rapidly
40% red = trending Dem. slowly
gray = staying put
40% blue = trending Rep. slowly
80% blue = trending Rep. rapidly

Wow is that map WAY wrong...

while some of them are right, maybe the map is a belated April fools joke as a whole??
The only map acceptable to the forum:



I don't understand why we'll have any more elections, actually, since they will always be based on 2004 and how liberal-trending the west is.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2007, 09:26:11 pm by tarheel maniac »Logged

Democrats: The more effective evil
http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/why-barack-obama-more-effective-evil

Shirtless beer pong, brah, with brObama's speechwriter

Bros before hoes, brah
Grad Students are the Worst
Alcon
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29656
United States
View Profile
« Reply #55 on: April 06, 2007, 09:31:27 pm »
Ignore

Er, Tarheel, with all respect - regional optimism?  Because, seriously...what's going on here?
Logged

n/c
Josh/Devilman88
josh4bush
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10149
Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -1.74

View Profile
« Reply #56 on: April 06, 2007, 09:48:24 pm »
Ignore


80% red = trending Dem. rapidly
40% red = trending Dem. slowly
gray = staying put
40% blue = trending Rep. slowly
80% blue = trending Rep. rapidly

Wow is that map WAY wrong...

while some of them are right, maybe the map is a belated April fools joke as a whole??
The only map acceptable to the forum:



I don't understand why we'll have any more elections, actually, since they will always be based on 2004 and how liberal-trending the west is.


Most of them states you have are right, but some of the shade of colors are wrong. Like VA and NC... VA should be dark red, while NC should be the medium red.
Logged
Fmr. President & Senator Polnut
polnut
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12856
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #57 on: April 07, 2007, 07:33:45 am »
Ignore

To say that MI could go republican is like saying that Illinois could go republican.  Both states were a win for Daddy Bush, and been Dem ever since.  MI has more republicans at the state level due to gerrymandering, but republicans are in a slump as far as anything statewide.  We have republicans on the state level who go to Lansing with only a fraction of the number of votes a Democrat receives in another disrict.  I forgot exactly what the numbers were, but Democrats won far more votes than republican in '06 for State Senate, but the Republicans are still in charge of that chamber.

This is a waste of time, but:

Michigan was close in 2000, 2002, and 2004.  Illinois almost went to Dukakis in 1988 and has been more and more Democrat ever since.  There can be no comparison.

I don't believe for a second that MI will be a blowout either way. I think it sitting on the Dem side of the fence, but it wouldn't take very much to push them over. I actually think PA is solidifying for the Dems, and OH remains the trickly little bastard it has been for the last God knows how long.

My belief is that with the Bush factor gone, MO, TX and AR becoming more competitive. Not that I think a Dem will win any (maybe MO).
Logged


Dogma is a comfortable thing, it saves you from thought - Sir Robert Menzies
Sibboleth
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 56234
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #58 on: April 07, 2007, 08:39:24 am »
Ignore

I think 'tis my role to point out at this point that the whole theory of tRenDinG is deeply flawed?
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."
Fmr. President & Senator Polnut
polnut
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12856
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #59 on: April 07, 2007, 08:44:56 am »
Ignore

I think 'tis my role to point out at this point that the whole theory of tRenDinG is deeply flawed?

Don't be such a party pooper.
Logged


Dogma is a comfortable thing, it saves you from thought - Sir Robert Menzies
Adlai Stevenson
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3438
United Kingdom


View Profile WWW
« Reply #60 on: April 07, 2007, 09:13:40 am »
Ignore

In a Clinton vs. Giuliani matchup:

MISSOURI
Giuliani (R) 51%
Clinton (D) 48%


ARKANSAS
Giuliani (R) 52%
Clinton (D) 47%


TEXAS
Giuliani (R) 56%
Clinton (D) 42%
Logged

[img/http://blog.pennlive.com/thrive/2007/08/WINEHOUSE1.jpgimg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpJQq8MoR-g
Fmr. President & Senator Polnut
polnut
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12856
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #61 on: April 07, 2007, 10:42:32 am »
Ignore

I just don't see Giuliani flying in Arkansas, where Bill is still very popular.
Logged


Dogma is a comfortable thing, it saves you from thought - Sir Robert Menzies
Verily
Cuivienen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16808


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

View Profile
« Reply #62 on: April 07, 2007, 12:17:42 pm »
Ignore

To say that MI could go republican is like saying that Illinois could go republican.  Both states were a win for Daddy Bush, and been Dem ever since.  MI has more republicans at the state level due to gerrymandering, but republicans are in a slump as far as anything statewide.  We have republicans on the state level who go to Lansing with only a fraction of the number of votes a Democrat receives in another disrict.  I forgot exactly what the numbers were, but Democrats won far more votes than republican in '06 for State Senate, but the Republicans are still in charge of that chamber.

This is a waste of time, but:

Michigan was close in 2000, 2002, and 2004.  Illinois almost went to Dukakis in 1988 and has been more and more Democrat ever since.  There can be no comparison.

I don't believe for a second that MI will be a blowout either way. I think it sitting on the Dem side of the fence, but it wouldn't take very much to push them over. I actually think PA is solidifying for the Dems, and OH remains the trickly little bastard it has been for the last God knows how long.

My belief is that with the Bush factor gone, MO, TX and AR becoming more competitive. Not that I think a Dem will win any (maybe MO).

For some strange reason, Bush reallys like visiting Missouri..every few weeks I hear about him visiting here, lol...

Missouri doesn't disapprove of Bush as much as the rest of the nation. The same was true during Clinton's dark days, we did not disapprove of him near as much as the rest of the nation.

MO and AR will likely be competitive in 2008, and Texas may give the Republican a smaller margin, but the Rethugican will still win easily.

James

Clinton never really had "dark days", either. The lowest his approval rating got was the mid-40s. (OTOH, you're also wrong that Missouri is giving Bush relatively good approval ratings; currently 35-62 by SUSA, which is within the margin of error of the national average.)

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=152d3ae8-1e4e-4dda-8adc-370b3f0125f4
« Last Edit: April 07, 2007, 12:20:58 pm by Verily »Logged
Passing Through a Screen Door
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 71908
Sweden


View Profile
« Reply #63 on: April 07, 2007, 06:58:46 pm »
Ignore

There is no way Giuliani would win Arkansas, much like West Virginia.
Logged

Victory over Inks dedicated in memory.


01/05/2004-01/10/2014
tarheel-leftist85
krustytheklown
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1263
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.90, S: -0.70

View Profile
« Reply #64 on: April 07, 2007, 10:24:33 pm »
Ignore


80% red = trending Dem. rapidly
40% red = trending Dem. slowly
gray = staying put
40% blue = trending Rep. slowly
80% blue = trending Rep. rapidly

Wow is that map WAY wrong...

while some of them are right, maybe the map is a belated April fools joke as a whole??
The only map acceptable to the forum:



I don't understand why we'll have any more elections, actually, since they will always be based on 2004 and how liberal-trending the west is.


Most of them states you have are right, but some of the shade of colors are wrong. Like VA and NC... VA should be dark red, while NC should be the medium red.

The reason I had NC as dark red and VA as medium, is that I liken VA to NV with a steady trickling towards Democrats (though I think it's about to stop in NV) and NC will have a larger swing to Democrats (whether or not Dems. actually win the state).  For example I think if Dems. add three or four points to their 2004 share in VA, it'll be around six to seven in NC.  I expect NC whites to be voting about 35-37% Dem. in 2008, so if black turnout is as disproportionately high in NC as in 2004 (big "if" of course), then a Dem. might carry the state.  Whites in the peripheral south seem to have moved towards Democrats (nowhere near a majority share, of course, but at least five or six points I reckon).  WV was sort of a fluke in 2004 (well, it makes a lot of sense when you hear Thomas Frank talk about it in What's the Matter With Kansas?), so a six to seven pt. swing in that state would be dark red, like KY (from 40%D to 46-7%D), KS (from 37%D to 44%D) and TX (38%D to 44-5%D).  Excepting Colorado (where Hispanic voters vote so heavily Democratic), the interior West should be pretty unfruitful (probably b/c of the same reason GA is trending so heavily Republican despite a growing black and Latino population that--for one reason or another--turns out in disproportionately small numbers.  These, overall, are optimistic numbers for Democrats--I'm not denying that.  They are sort of the high mark, unless my party once again reverts to centrism and Clintonomics and the like.  And actually, most of the swings in the states cancel each other out, with likely a minimally-Democratic trend overall.
Logged

Democrats: The more effective evil
http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/why-barack-obama-more-effective-evil

Shirtless beer pong, brah, with brObama's speechwriter

Bros before hoes, brah
HardRCafé
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4403
Italy
View Profile
« Reply #65 on: April 09, 2007, 12:24:45 am »
Ignore

There is no way Giuliani would win Arkansas, much like West Virginia.

Obama would totally like clobber Guiliani in West Virginia because that would be awesome and stuff.  Bank it!
Logged

Jaggerjack
Fabian_the_Fastman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1408
Thailand


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: -4.00

View Profile
« Reply #66 on: April 29, 2007, 11:04:54 pm »
Ignore

(trend; red for GOP and blue for Dems; green =  no trend)


I fail to understand how Illinois is trending Republican. The Dem percentage has been growing steadily since 1992, and it's gonna stay like that as long as Chicagoland continues moving to the left.
Logged
Smash255
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14277


View Profile
« Reply #67 on: April 29, 2007, 11:54:00 pm »
Ignore

(trend; red for GOP and blue for Dems; green =  no trend)


I fail to understand how Illinois is trending Republican. The Dem percentage has been growing steadily since 1992, and it's gonna stay like that as long as Chicagoland continues moving to the left.

half this map is a disaster
Logged

Jaggerjack
Fabian_the_Fastman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1408
Thailand


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: -4.00

View Profile
« Reply #68 on: April 30, 2007, 06:46:46 pm »
Ignore

(trend; red for GOP and blue for Dems; green =  no trend)


I fail to understand how Illinois is trending Republican. The Dem percentage has been growing steadily since 1992, and it's gonna stay like that as long as Chicagoland continues moving to the left.
No wonder.
half this map is a disaster

Logged
Passing Through a Screen Door
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 71908
Sweden


View Profile
« Reply #69 on: May 02, 2007, 10:37:20 am »
Ignore

(trend; red for GOP and blue for Dems; green =  no trend)


I fail to understand how Illinois is trending Republican. The Dem percentage has been growing steadily since 1992, and it's gonna stay like that as long as Chicagoland continues moving to the left.

half this map is a disaster


Yeah. Georgia going Dem is the worst part.
Logged

Victory over Inks dedicated in memory.


01/05/2004-01/10/2014
Jaggerjack
Fabian_the_Fastman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1408
Thailand


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: -4.00

View Profile
« Reply #70 on: May 02, 2007, 07:41:32 pm »
Ignore

(trend; red for GOP and blue for Dems; green =  no trend)


I fail to understand how Illinois is trending Republican. The Dem percentage has been growing steadily since 1992, and it's gonna stay like that as long as Chicagoland continues moving to the left.

half this map is a disaster


Yeah. Georgia going Dem is the worst part.
Yeah. Georgia's just one of those states the Democrats have no future in. Sure we'll hold on to Atlanta for one helluva long time, but Georgia as a whole will only go further to the right.

As for my own map...

« Last Edit: July 02, 2007, 04:29:01 pm by Fabian_the_Fastman »Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines