Anti-region states
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 04:07:16 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  Anti-region states
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Anti-region states  (Read 10609 times)
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: January 24, 2004, 11:31:46 AM »

OK, there are certain states that seem to often go against their regions, regardless of pary preferences, like New Hampshire in the Northeast, Tennessee in the South, or Montana in the West.

Why would that be?




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 #1 on: January 24, 2004, 11:37:00 AM »

New Hampshire was the only Northeastern state to vote for Bush in 2000 and Wilson in 1916. Together with Maine and Vermont it has often formed its own enclave, voting differently compared to the rest of the northeast.  
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: January 24, 2004, 12:47:33 PM »

OK, there are certain states that seem to often go against their regions, regardless of pary preferences, like New Hampshire in the Northeast, Tennessee in the South, or Montana in the West.

Why would that be?


About this and your other thread - some states are just very similar to one another, like the Dakotas or Wyoming and Idaho.  Or Kansas and Nebraska.  In fact I should've thought all the above mentioned pretty much vote alike.  As far as states that don't fit their region, New Hampshire is the prime example.  It is the last refuge of the freedom-minded New England Republican.  I think this may be partly because Republicans have actually fled there from high-tax Massachusetts.  I don't think Tennessee really falls outside its reagion politically, its just less extreme - more like Arkansas or Louisana than Mississipi and Kentucky.  As for Montana, when did it break outof the usual Republican pattern?
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 #3 on: January 24, 2004, 12:52:53 PM »

OK, there are certain states that seem to often go against their regions, regardless of pary preferences, like New Hampshire in the Northeast, Tennessee in the South, or Montana in the West.

Why would that be?


About this and your other thread - some states are just very similar to one another, like the Dakotas or Wyoming and Idaho.  Or Kansas and Nebraska.  In fact I should've thought all the above mentioned pretty much vote alike.  As far as states that don't fit their region, New Hampshire is the prime example.  It is the last refuge of the freedom-minded New England Republican.  I think this may be partly because Republicans have actually fled there from high-tax Massachusetts.  I don't think Tennessee really falls outside its reagion politically, its just less extreme - more like Arkansas or Louisana than Mississipi and Kentucky.  As for Montana, when did it break outof the usual Republican pattern?

The last time was in 1992. Remember, i am taking a long term view, so the fact that Montana voted Dem from 1932-1948 means something here. It also voted Dem in 1900, 1912 and 1916. Overall, that means it gone Dem in 9 out of the last 26 elections. I hadn't checked carefully, I just had a feeling that Montana is less Republican than neighbouring states, but it wasn't as true as I thought.
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 #4 on: January 24, 2004, 12:54:58 PM »

Bush won Idaho and Wyoming 67-27, but Montana was "only" 58-33, so it seems a little different than other similar states. But it isn't that good an example, I agree, there is probably a better one somewhere.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: January 24, 2004, 01:24:33 PM »

Bush won Idaho and Wyoming 67-27, but Montana was "only" 58-33, so it seems a little different than other similar states. But it isn't that good an example, I agree, there is probably a better one somewhere.

Yeah Montana is a little less conservative than Idaho-Wyoming-Utah.  
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: January 24, 2004, 01:28:51 PM »

...Although that's not very difficult...
Logged
Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon
htmldon
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,983
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.03, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: January 24, 2004, 01:58:12 PM »

The problem in Montana is the Missoula area.

Bush won Idaho and Wyoming 67-27, but Montana was "only" 58-33, so it seems a little different than other similar states. But it isn't that good an example, I agree, there is probably a better one somewhere.

Yeah Montana is a little less conservative than Idaho-Wyoming-Utah.  
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: January 24, 2004, 02:03:14 PM »

The problem in Montana is the Missoula area.

Bush won Idaho and Wyoming 67-27, but Montana was "only" 58-33, so it seems a little different than other similar states. But it isn't that good an example, I agree, there is probably a better one somewhere.

Yeah Montana is a little less conservative than Idaho-Wyoming-Utah.  

Is that where you find Hollywood liberals buying ranch land like Robert Redford, etc.?
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: January 24, 2004, 02:03:23 PM »

Bush won Idaho and Wyoming 67-27, but Montana was "only" 58-33, so it seems a little different than other similar states. But it isn't that good an example, I agree, there is probably a better one somewhere.

Yeah Montana is a little less conservative than Idaho-Wyoming-Utah.  

That could be because more of it's population is consentrated closer to Canada.  Just a thought.
Logged
zorkpolitics
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,188
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: January 24, 2004, 05:28:09 PM »

OK, there are certain states that seem to often go against their regions, regardless of pary preferences, like New Hampshire in the Northeast, Tennessee in the South, or Montana in the West.

Why would that be?

Regardless of why, these examples show that the US still is a federal republic, a collection of different states.   In my opnion, this provides a reasonable rationale to continue with the current method of electing a President.  An electoral college that requires the winner to win many different states, rather than go to a popular vote winner in a single national election .
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 #11 on: January 24, 2004, 06:28:03 PM »

OK, there are certain states that seem to often go against their regions, regardless of pary preferences, like New Hampshire in the Northeast, Tennessee in the South, or Montana in the West.

Why would that be?

Regardless of why, these examples show that the US still is a federal republic, a collection of different states.   In my opnion, this provides a reasonable rationale to continue with the current method of electing a President.  An electoral college that requires the winner to win many different states, rather than go to a popular vote winner in a single national election .

Lol...this is my thread, I don't want it to turn into a debate on the EC... Sad
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: January 24, 2004, 10:01:31 PM »

Bush won Idaho and Wyoming 67-27, but Montana was "only" 58-33, so it seems a little different than other similar states. But it isn't that good an example, I agree, there is probably a better one somewhere.

Yeah Montana is a little less conservative than Idaho-Wyoming-Utah.  

That could be because more of it's population is consentrated closer to Canada.  Just a thought.
It could also be because of the very high Native American population. Three of the five counties Gore carried there are Native American areas. The others are actually in the decaying, ex-mining Butte area, not the Missoula area as claimed elsewhere.
Oh, and rich liberal areas being the most Dem places is true in Idaho (that county Gore carries there is Sun Valley) and Wyoming, but not as far as I can see in Montana.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: January 25, 2004, 01:50:46 PM »

There are two counties in the Butte area that have voted Democrat since... ever as far as I can tell...
Logged
Huckleberry Finn
Finn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,819


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: February 07, 2004, 05:40:40 PM »

I comprehend Indiana as anti-region state. It is only state in Rustbelt where Republicans are very strong.   They have won every presidential election since 1968 and Bush got there almost 57 percent of vote.

Indiana's democratic senator Evan Bayh is fairly conservative also.
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 #15 on: February 07, 2004, 06:00:59 PM »

I comprehend Indiana as anti-region state. It is only state in Rustbelt where Republicans are very strong.   They have won every presidential election since 1968 and Bush got there almost 57 percent of vote.

Indiana's democratic senator Evan Bayh is fairly conservative also.

Yeah, in that sense, yes. But it's only b/c they're so strongly Republican. Why is that, btw? Why is Indiana so different?
Logged
Huckleberry Finn
Finn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,819


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: February 07, 2004, 06:58:40 PM »

Evan Bayh is of course tactician-conservative, at least partly.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: February 08, 2004, 08:24:59 AM »

New Hampshire is a good one.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: February 08, 2004, 11:59:04 AM »

New Hampshire actually has a much shorter history as an anti-region state than Indiana.  Indiana has voted consistenly Republican for the entire post-WW II period except for 1964.

New Hampshire used to vote in a similar manner to Vermont and Maine, but has not become as liberal as Vermont and Maine as quickly.  But it appears to be moving in that direction, so I don't know how much longer it can be continued an anti-region state.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: February 10, 2004, 10:12:11 AM »

Indiana is fairly unique, but then again it is very similar to western/central Ohio, Kentucky to the south, and IL outside Chicago.  In other words it is typical of broad swathes of the 'rustbelt', it just lacks other more democrat leaning aspects.  Btw I dislike the term rustbelt - I think its outdated as those industries are so outdated they rusted away years ago and have little relevance to the area today.  On the other hand has anyone else heard about the boom in the steel industry worldwide due to the enormous demand in China?
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 #20 on: February 10, 2004, 12:20:21 PM »

Indiana is fairly unique, but then again it is very similar to western/central Ohio, Kentucky to the south, and IL outside Chicago.  In other words it is typical of broad swathes of the 'rustbelt', it just lacks other more democrat leaning aspects.  Btw I dislike the term rustbelt - I think its outdated as those industries are so outdated they rusted away years ago and have little relevance to the area today.  On the other hand has anyone else heard about the boom in the steel industry worldwide due to the enormous demand in China?

The Swedish steel industry is doing pretty well I think...before the EU-US trade wars at least... Sad
Logged
Calthrina950
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,937
United States


P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: July 10, 2021, 11:16:43 AM »
« Edited: July 10, 2021, 11:25:34 AM by Calthrina950 »

New Hampshire actually has a much shorter history as an anti-region state than Indiana.  Indiana has voted consistenly Republican for the entire post-WW II period except for 1964.

New Hampshire used to vote in a similar manner to Vermont and Maine, but has not become as liberal as Vermont and Maine as quickly.  But it appears to be moving in that direction, so I don't know how much longer it can be continued an anti-region state.

Another old thread, but one I had to respond to. New Hampshire seems to have gone through "phases" compared to Maine and Vermont. Up until c. 1960, New Hampshire was usually more Democratic than Maine and Vermont. It was, as noted above, the only one of the three to vote for Wilson in 1916, was noticeably more Democratic in 1920, and was later the only one of the three to vote for Roosevelt in 1936, 1940, and 1944 (and was Hoover's closest win of the three in 1932). It went for Eisenhower by a landslide, but was still more Democratic than the other two (in 1956, New Hampshire was 66% Eisenhower, while Maine was 71% Eisenhower and Vermont 72% Eisenhower). And it was Kennedy's best state of the three in 1960.

But from 1964 onwards, New Hampshire has generally been more Republican than Maine and Vermont. Johnson got 64% in New Hampshire, compared to 66% in Vermont and 69% in Maine. It was Nixon's best state of the three in 1972, Reagan's best state of the three in 1980/84, and H.W. Bush's best state of the three in 1988/92, and was, as noted above, the only one of the three to vote for W. Bush in 2000 (and was his best one in 2004). It was McCain's best in 2008, Romney's best in 2012, and Trump's best in 2016/20, and was the only one of the three Obama did not win by double digits.
Logged
TDAS04
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,475
Bhutan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: July 10, 2021, 03:02:42 PM »

And now Virginia is the obvious answer.

Or maybe Illinois, we'll see.
Logged
Alben Barkley
KYWildman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,282
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.97, S: -5.74

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: July 11, 2021, 12:40:04 AM »

And now Virginia is the obvious answer.

Or maybe Illinois, we'll see.

Virginia could be seen as part of a Mid-Atlantic region with Maryland, DC, Delaware though, and certainly it has more in common with those states than others in “the South” such as Alabama or Arkansas. In that sense it’s actually moved more towards its region recently and was the outlier before.
Logged
GregTheGreat657
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,920
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.77, S: -1.04

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: July 22, 2021, 05:23:32 PM »

Virginia in the South.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« 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 0.062 seconds with 13 queries.