Migrating population is the key to the trend analysis

[Shira]

As per “AFRNC Chair Richard M. Nixon”:
“Bush is very popular in Texas, as is Governor Rick Perry. Their popularity has helped the GOP grow there. Bush was the first GOP governor in over 100 years.”

WRONG!

Since 1980 TX’s GOP number is higher than their national one.

In 1988,1992,1996,2000 this number was 1.95, 2.58, 7.76, and 11.30 respectively.
The consistent growth has nothing to do with this governor or that governor. It has more to do with migrating population (emigrating and immigrating).

In general, if you look only on the difference (state-national) then the trend analysis is a very good tool.

[Shira]

"In 1988,1992,1996,2000 this number was 1.95, 2.58, 7.76, and 11.30 respectively"
 
should be:
"In 1988,1992,1996,2000 the difference was 1.95, 2.58, 7.76, and 11.30 respectively"

[ATFFL]

In 3 of those 4 elections a Texan was on the Republican ballot.  The one with out a Texan on the ticket, a 3rd party candidate was from Texas.

Taking it back to 1980, 5 of 6 elections have had a Texan on the Republican ticket.  This is more than likely to skew the numbers in 2 ways.

First, a favorite son is going to get more votes.

Second, such heavy attention frmo teh national party is going to bring more people to the party locally.

You also have to consider the nature of the election.  1988 was a Bush I blowout, so it would have been very hard to be far above his national average, Texas numbers stayed the same and did not move with teh rest of the nation.

1992 saw the vote split heavily with Perot.

1996 saw Perot II who appealed more to Texas Dems than Reps, an oddity for Perot.

2000 was a dead even election anda again Texas numbers did not shift with the national polls, but stayed steady behind the hometown boy.

[Lunar]

I tell you every time that you can't use Texas as an example.  The "home state" effect exists all the way from 04 back to 88.

Furthermore, subtracting the state number from the national one could be misleading in many cases.  As I said before, Clinton could increase his national number by drawing 6% out of California and New York but 1% out of Texas.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

In 3 of those 4 elections a Texan was on the Republican ballot.  The one with out a Texan on the ticket, a 3rd party candidate was from Texas.

If Bush I's a Texan, Hillary Clinton is a New Yorker.

[classical liberal]

Bush is from Maine, but he owns a residence in TX for tax purposes.  Cheney is from WY although he also owned a residence in TX for tax pusposes until he was obligated to sell it in order to qualify to run as Bush's VP.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

As per “AFRNC Chair Richard M. Nixon”:
“Bush is very popular in Texas, as is Governor Rick Perry. Their popularity has helped the GOP grow there. Bush was the first GOP governor in over 100 years.”

WRONG!

Since 1980 TX’s GOP number is higher than their national one.

In 1988,1992,1996,2000 this number was 1.95, 2.58, 7.76, and 11.30 respectively.
The consistent growth has nothing to do with this governor or that governor. It has more to do with migrating population (emigrating and immigrating).

In general, if you look only on the difference (state-national) then the trend analysis is a very good tool.

This simply isn't true in the South.  The South has become more Republican because conservative Democrats became alienated with their party and became Republican.  Also, the landscape of issues over which people choose their party has changed...more Southern voters are now voting Republican because of social issues that just weren't very important in 1980.  

It's not like there are a bunch of Republicans who all moved from New Jersey to Texas in the 80's.

If anything, Texas has become more liberal (not more Democratic) because of increased Hispanic population.  Not liberal enough to become a swing state, though.

[Shira]

In the south there are voters who vote Rep while their parents have voted Dem. It is not easy to find a voter who switched parties, though every one of us knows someone who did it

It is safe to assert that the main reason for the big changes in states like NH, NJ, CT, SD, MT, WY and TX is the emigration/immigration process that took place during the last 20 years.

[??????????]

In the south there are voters who vote Rep while their parents have voted Dem. It is not easy to find a voter who switched parties, though every one of us knows someone who did it

It is safe to assert that the main reason for the big changes in states like NH, NJ, CT, SD, MT, WY and TX is the emigration/immigration process that took place during the last 20 years.

Its not easy to find a voter who switched? About ever other Republican I know down south here was a democrat when they turned 18. Old timers however are mostly hopeless because they are stuck on FDR.

[The Duke]

I think the fact that the Republicans now control nearly every state office and te state legislature for about the first time ever is a pretty good sign that they have trended Republican.  The home state effect explains the Presidential race issues.

[??????????]

I think the fact that the Republicans now control nearly every state office and te state legislature for about the first time ever is a pretty good sign that they have trended Republican.  The home state effect explains the Presidential race issues.

The Republicans completely control all levels of government (except the SC) in Florida. The Democrats here are basically a ineffective third party when it comes to state politics.

[Shira]

I think the fact that the Republicans now control nearly every state office and te state legislature for about the first time ever is a pretty good sign that they have trended Republican.  The home state effect explains the Presidential race issues.

I would advise you to prepare yourself for a "Florida Disappointment".
The Republicans completely control all levels of government (except the SC) in Florida. The Democrats here are basically a ineffective third party when it comes to state politics.

[??????????]

I think the fact that the Republicans now control nearly every state office and te state legislature for about the first time ever is a pretty good sign that they have trended Republican.  The home state effect explains the Presidential race issues.

I would advise you to prepare yourself for a "Florida Disappointment".
The Republicans completely control all levels of government (except the SC) in Florida. The Democrats here are basically a ineffective third party when it comes to state politics.

Hardly. The Democrats haven't even started a GOTV effort here yet. I have looked and looked and they have no campaign hq in the area yet either. While the Bush reelection team has been swarming the streets every week since March. I get two phone calls a week and the weekend before last they had over 15k people groundpounding throughout florida getting new voters. GOP members are standing out in front of Post offices registering new voters as well. I have yet to see one sign, sticker, or TShirt that says "John Kerry for President". Although I have seen shirts that say "John Effin Kerry, for Effin President? No effin Way!!!" and I saw a jogger running around our local lake with a sign on the back of his shirt (his wife had a sign to) the sign said "F**k Kerry!".

[Shira]

I would advise you to prepare yourself for a "Florida Disappointment".

[??????????]

I would advise you to prepare yourself for a "Florida Disappointment".

Yeah! And Jeb was going to be swept out of office back in 2002?

The Jeb Bush defeat of 2002




Bush     56.01%
McBride 43.16%

Remember, the North of the state can still outvote the south.

[Shira]

Have you noticed that the governors of MA, CT, NY, and MD  are all REPs.
In MA Bush got 32%. In NYC - 15% despite the GOP mayor.

[??????????]

Have you noticed that the governors of MA, CT, NY, and MD  are all REPs.
In MA Bush got 32%. In NYC - 15% despite the GOP mayor.

I disagree. A lot of the vote in 2002 was momentum to make sure Jeb stayed in office. North Florida can still outvote the south.

[Shira]

 
Americans vote differently in state elections then in presidential ones

[ATFFL]

Have you noticed that the governors of MA, CT, NY, and MD  are all REPs.
In MA Bush got 32%. In NYC - 15% despite the GOP mayor.

If you track those states back you will see they got rid of governors who were either scandal ridden, grossly incompetent or began to favor one part of the state too heavily.

[??????????]

Americans vote differently in state elections then in presidential ones

Ok, we'll see. I can see old time southerners buying the words of a New England yankee.

[??????????]

I remember in early 2002 all these democrats kept getting on tv saying. "We will sweep Jeb out!" "This is revenge for 2000." Well again as I said, the northern part of the state simply outvoted Miami.

[classical liberal]

People do vote differently in state and federal elections.  Case in point, Alabama State Legislature is controlled by the Democrats although Bush won the state by double digits.

[??????????]

People do vote differently in state and federal elections.  Case in point, Alabama State Legislature is controlled by the Democrats although Bush won the state by double digits.

I believe Florida is a exception to this rule.

[Beet]

As per “AFRNC Chair Richard M. Nixon”:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just to clarify this, Perry has actually be a terrible governor and his popularity is the lowest of any Texas governor since 1987.

http://www.polstate.com/archives/005493.html#005493

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

In the south there are voters who vote Rep while their parents have voted Dem. It is not easy to find a voter who switched parties, though every one of us knows someone who did it

It is safe to assert that the main reason for the big changes in states like NH, NJ, CT, SD, MT, WY and TX is the emigration/immigration process that took place during the last 20 years.

Why is this so safe to assert?  Who the hell has immigrated to SD in the past 20 years?  Or even WY?  And most of the immigrants to TX are pretty liberal.

I'm sorry...you have no idea what you are talking about.  The people who live in South Dakota today are the SAME PEOPLE that lived there 20 years ago (or their children).

Rural voters are now much more Republican is presidential elections than they were 20 years.  The has to do with both with the issues changing and the parties changing.  But it is NOT because of immigration or emmigration.