Do you see any major shifts in the next decade?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 04:16:28 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Do you see any major shifts in the next decade?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Author Topic: Do you see any major shifts in the next decade?  (Read 15059 times)
HardRCafé
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,364
Italy
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: April 06, 2007, 02:52:35 AM »

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
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,403
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: April 06, 2007, 08:47:54 AM »

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
Kevin
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,424
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: April 06, 2007, 08:53:39 AM »

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
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,098
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -1.55, S: -4.52

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: April 06, 2007, 10:39:36 AM »

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
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,274
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: April 06, 2007, 09:23:23 PM »
« Edited: April 06, 2007, 09:26:11 PM by tarheel maniac »


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.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: April 06, 2007, 09:31:27 PM »

Er, Tarheel, with all respect - regional optimism?  Because, seriously...what's going on here?
Logged
Josh/Devilman88
josh4bush
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,079
Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: April 06, 2007, 09:48:24 PM »


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
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: April 07, 2007, 07:33:45 AM »

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
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: April 07, 2007, 08:39:24 AM »

I think 'tis my role to point out at this point that the whole theory of tRenDinG is deeply flawed?
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: April 07, 2007, 08:44:56 AM »

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
Adlai Stevenson
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,403
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: April 07, 2007, 09:13:40 AM »

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
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: April 07, 2007, 10:42:32 AM »

I just don't see Giuliani flying in Arkansas, where Bill is still very popular.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: April 07, 2007, 12:17:42 PM »
« Edited: April 07, 2007, 12:20:58 PM by Verily »

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
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: April 07, 2007, 06:58:46 PM »

There is no way Giuliani would win Arkansas, much like West Virginia.
Logged
tarheel-leftist85
krustytheklown
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,274
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: April 07, 2007, 10:24:33 PM »


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
HardRCafé
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,364
Italy
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: April 09, 2007, 12:24:45 AM »

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
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,369
Thailand


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: April 29, 2007, 11:04:54 PM »

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

Image Link
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
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,445


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: April 29, 2007, 11:54:00 PM »

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

Image Link
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
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,369
Thailand


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: April 30, 2007, 06:46:46 PM »

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

Image Link
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
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: May 02, 2007, 10:37:20 AM »

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

Image Link
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
Jaggerjack
Fabian_the_Fastman
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,369
Thailand


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: May 02, 2007, 07:41:32 PM »
« Edited: July 02, 2007, 04:29:01 PM by Fabian_the_Fastman »

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

Image Link
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...

Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,357


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: November 26, 2019, 03:39:18 AM »

lol so Atlas hasnt changed really over the past 12 years. The whole Trends= Destiny was huge even back then as well and lol the person with the wrongest predictions was BRTD.


Logged
Annatar
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 976
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: November 26, 2019, 04:46:45 AM »
« Edited: November 26, 2019, 05:25:28 AM by Annatar »

It would be interesting to see what people think today and then come back in 2029 to see whether they were right, if you look at a lot of threads from 2009, they were pretty wrong about how things would look in 2019.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,357


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: November 26, 2019, 04:52:58 AM »

It would be interesting to see what people think today and then come back in 2029 to see whether they were right, if you look at a lot of threads from 2009, they were pretty wrong bout how things would look in 2019.

I bet many of these predictions will be wrong because trying to extrapolate trends beyond 2 election cycles usually is futile because of how many things change in ways we cant even think about during that 8 year period which has a far larger impact on how politics will be rather than trends= destiny .

The most hilarious prediction here was that Georgia would become even more Republican by the end of this decade then it was in 2004
Logged
fluffypanther19
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,769
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: November 26, 2019, 12:54:36 PM »

yeah, for people who spent a considerable amount of time debating politics, we can't predict jack.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  
« 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 0.098 seconds with 12 queries.