The New Jersey example
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 25, 2024, 09:50:34 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)
  The New Jersey example
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: The New Jersey example  (Read 1644 times)
Shira
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,858


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 24, 2004, 09:35:04 PM »


Take NJ, for example.
In the 12 years from 1988 to 2000 the Reps lost more than 12%. Do you think that people in NJ underwent an ideological shift? Do you think that the people who voted in NJ in 1988 and prior to it, changed their voting HABITS ?   The answer to both of these questions is NO. What happened is, that the makeup of the population has changed and consequently the average cultural and sociological profile of the NJ voter has changed. This is the crucial factor and the main reason for changes between elections in the REAL power of a party in a state.

What is the “real power”?
In 2000 the real power was reflected in the elections results. The elections were balanced and no serious third party participated.
In other elections you have to make some adjustments.
In the 1988 election subtract 3.8% from the official REP number in the state. This 3.8% should be attributed to the nationwide victory of Bush by a margin of 7.6%.
In 1992 and 1996 it is more complicated.  To the official REP number in a state, add half of the Perot number in this state and half of Clinton’s nationwide margin of victory and you’ll get the best estimate of the REP’s  “real power” in the state.


Logged
Bandit3 the Worker
bandit73
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,958


Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -9.92

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 24, 2004, 10:12:13 PM »

What happened in the latter half of the '90s was that the Democrats squandered their advantage in poor rural counties. Since New Jersey is mostly urban and suburban, it appeared to have become more Democratic in that time frame.
Logged
Shira
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,858


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 24, 2004, 10:30:55 PM »


From 1988 to 2000 SD, WY, MT, ND, WV, IA, NY, FL, MA, CT, NH, DE, and NJ shifted by more than 8% one way or the other.  What I am claiming is that the main reason for these shifts is the sociological, cultural and demographic changes that resulted from the migration process. It is hard to believe that the veteran voters (1988 and prior) have changed their voting habits.
Logged
Bandit3 the Worker
bandit73
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,958


Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -9.92

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 24, 2004, 10:35:27 PM »

I think they changed their voting habits because the Democrats stopped focusing on economic issues and focused more on "microinitiatives" that didn't have any appeal outside upper-class suburbs.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« 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 0.023 seconds with 11 queries.