Talk Elections

Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion => 2008 U.S. Presidential Election Results => Topic started by: WalterMitty on November 06, 2008, 09:17:09 AM



Title: michigan
Post by: WalterMitty on November 06, 2008, 09:17:09 AM
from now on will michigan be considered 'safe democrat' in presidential elections, rather than a 'battleground'?


Title: Re: michigan
Post by: Horus on November 06, 2008, 09:42:33 AM
Hopefully.


Title: Re: michigan
Post by: AngelFromKansas on November 06, 2008, 10:13:45 AM
from now on will michigan be considered 'safe democrat' in presidential elections, rather than a 'battleground'?

democrats won in kent conuty for the first time in 44 years


Title: Re: michigan
Post by: SPQR on November 06, 2008, 10:39:53 AM
KANSAS was closer than Michigan...


Title: Re: michigan
Post by: elcorazon on November 06, 2008, 11:11:38 AM
well, following that line of thinking, the following states were closer than Nevada:

Texas
Arizona
South Carolina
both Dakotas
Georgia

and in addition to those the following were closer than New Mexico:

West Virginia
Mississippi

and Tennessee was about the same.

Arkansas was McCAin's 6th best state - better than Nebraska, Kansas, Kentucky, West Virginia, etc.  Louisiana was right there with Arkanasas.  I hope no one thinks of those states as potential dem pickups anymore.  Clearly the atlantic coast of the south is the dems best opportunity to make gains, not the mississippi river basin.


Title: Re: michigan
Post by: Nhoj on November 06, 2008, 11:57:34 AM
not sure i would as i think McCains dumb move to say he was giving up on the state had some effect there however Michigan hasn't gone republican in a long time and i don't see it happening soon particularly with the economy they have.


Title: Re: michigan
Post by: Nym90 on November 06, 2008, 12:12:38 PM
No, but the idea of Michigan as a racist state has hopefully been finally put to rest.

Not to mention those theories that voters angry about the economy here would punish Democrats. You'd think the 2006 election results here would've killed that idea, but it resurfaced this year again for some odd reason.


Title: Re: michigan
Post by: Beefalow and the Consumer on November 06, 2008, 12:25:22 PM
from now on will michigan be considered 'safe democrat' in presidential elections, rather than a 'battleground'?

If the auto industry completely dies and there is a mass exodus, it will become a swing state again - similar to how Katrina transformed LA to a safe GOP state by removing all the Democrats.

For now, I'd say Michigan can only go GOP in a landslide.


Title: Re: michigan
Post by: memphis on November 06, 2008, 02:28:09 PM
Candidates do matter, guys. Michigan is definately likely Dem, but I think a West Coast Democrat could easily lose here against a Midwestern republican.


Title: Re: michigan
Post by: Beefalow and the Consumer on November 06, 2008, 03:21:47 PM
Candidates do matter, guys. Michigan is definately likely Dem, but I think a West Coast Democrat could easily lose here against a Midwestern republican.

Mitt Romney would have a good chance against Diane Feinstein. :)


Title: Re: michigan
Post by: Hash on November 06, 2008, 04:32:00 PM
I remember when they said the whole Michigan primary debacle would hurt Obama. lol


Title: Re: michigan
Post by: RJ on November 07, 2008, 11:00:27 AM
If North Carolina can be won by the Democrats, Michigan can be won by the Republicans. That being said, if Michigan is contested in any election given the current circumstances, things are probably bad for the Democrats.


Title: Re: michigan
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on November 11, 2008, 03:42:02 AM
I remember when they said the whole Michigan primary debacle would hurt Obama. lol

That never made sense to me.


Title: Re: michigan
Post by: Gustaf on November 11, 2008, 07:10:53 AM
You cannot compare raw state margins in this election, since Obama won by 7%. That would be like saying in 1984 that Massachusetts was safer for the GOP than Minnesota for the Democrats.

I will say though that what really surprised me was Michigan swinging towards Obama compared to 2004. I certainly didn't expect that. Overall, it seems like what really made Obama in this election was the financial crisis which seems to have pushed blue-collar white voters (outside of the South) heavily in his direction. Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio all seemed to improve substantially for him towards the end (as did some other places like Massachusetts).

Still, compared to national average we're still not talking about a state that is safely Democrat. It was something like D +7 or +6 - in other words about as Democratic as Virginia was Republican 8 years ago.


Title: Re: michigan
Post by: Sbane on November 11, 2008, 11:52:51 AM
You cannot compare raw state margins in this election, since Obama won by 7%. That would be like saying in 1984 that Massachusetts was safer for the GOP than Minnesota for the Democrats.

I will say though that what really surprised me was Michigan swinging towards Obama compared to 2004. I certainly didn't expect that. Overall, it seems like what really made Obama in this election was the financial crisis which seems to have pushed blue-collar white voters (outside of the South) heavily in his direction. Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio all seemed to improve substantially for him towards the end (as did some other places like Massachusetts).

Still, compared to national average we're still not talking about a state that is safely Democrat. It was something like D +7 or +6 - in other words about as Democratic as Virginia was Republican 8 years ago.

Huh? Michigan was D+3 or about a 6 point margin above the national average in both 2000 and 2004. Now that margin has grown to about 9 points or so and MI in fact not just swinged, but trended towards Obama.


Title: Re: michigan
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on November 11, 2008, 12:00:16 PM
No, but it's certainly a lean Democratic state at this point.


Title: Re: michigan
Post by: Gustaf on November 11, 2008, 01:40:36 PM
You cannot compare raw state margins in this election, since Obama won by 7%. That would be like saying in 1984 that Massachusetts was safer for the GOP than Minnesota for the Democrats.

I will say though that what really surprised me was Michigan swinging towards Obama compared to 2004. I certainly didn't expect that. Overall, it seems like what really made Obama in this election was the financial crisis which seems to have pushed blue-collar white voters (outside of the South) heavily in his direction. Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio all seemed to improve substantially for him towards the end (as did some other places like Massachusetts).

Still, compared to national average we're still not talking about a state that is safely Democrat. It was something like D +7 or +6 - in other words about as Democratic as Virginia was Republican 8 years ago.

Huh? Michigan was D+3 or about a 6 point margin above the national average in both 2000 and 2004. Now that margin has grown to about 9 points or so and MI in fact not just swinged, but trended towards Obama.

Huh? I didn't say anything about Michigan margins in the past so none of what you say about that has anything to do with my post and can form a basis for a "huh?" That leaves:"Now that margin has grown to about 9 points or so and MI in fact not just swinged, but trended towards Obama. "

It's true that I had the number there memorized wrong. It was a couple of points higher, which does bring it into border-line solid territory. If it holds at this level it would qualify as solid. The question is whether it actually will though.

I don't know what the whole swing-trend thing is about. I already acknowledged that it swung/trended towards Obama. In fact, that was the whole emphasis of my post, in case you missed it. :P


Title: Re: michigan
Post by: Sbane on November 11, 2008, 04:02:37 PM
You cannot compare raw state margins in this election, since Obama won by 7%. That would be like saying in 1984 that Massachusetts was safer for the GOP than Minnesota for the Democrats.

I will say though that what really surprised me was Michigan swinging towards Obama compared to 2004. I certainly didn't expect that. Overall, it seems like what really made Obama in this election was the financial crisis which seems to have pushed blue-collar white voters (outside of the South) heavily in his direction. Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio all seemed to improve substantially for him towards the end (as did some other places like Massachusetts).

Still, compared to national average we're still not talking about a state that is safely Democrat. It was something like D +7 or +6 - in other words about as Democratic as Virginia was Republican 8 years ago.

Huh? Michigan was D+3 or about a 6 point margin above the national average in both 2000 and 2004. Now that margin has grown to about 9 points or so and MI in fact not just swinged, but trended towards Obama.

Huh? I didn't say anything about Michigan margins in the past so none of what you say about that has anything to do with my post and can form a basis for a "huh?" That leaves:"Now that margin has grown to about 9 points or so and MI in fact not just swinged, but trended towards Obama. "

It's true that I had the number there memorized wrong. It was a couple of points higher, which does bring it into border-line solid territory. If it holds at this level it would qualify as solid. The question is whether it actually will though.

I don't know what the whole swing-trend thing is about. I already acknowledged that it swung/trended towards Obama. In fact, that was the whole emphasis of my post, in case you missed it. :P

Oh alright I thought you were trying to say the state was swinging/trending republican which made no sense to me. MI was one of the states Obama seemed to do much better with rural whites, basically following the same pattern as most of the upper midwest and west. That being said it is still not a safe democrat state just a lean state and this should be one of the states republicans need to get more competitive in if they want to win nationally.


Title: Re: michigan
Post by: Gustaf on November 12, 2008, 06:13:36 AM
You cannot compare raw state margins in this election, since Obama won by 7%. That would be like saying in 1984 that Massachusetts was safer for the GOP than Minnesota for the Democrats.

I will say though that what really surprised me was Michigan swinging towards Obama compared to 2004. I certainly didn't expect that. Overall, it seems like what really made Obama in this election was the financial crisis which seems to have pushed blue-collar white voters (outside of the South) heavily in his direction. Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio all seemed to improve substantially for him towards the end (as did some other places like Massachusetts).

Still, compared to national average we're still not talking about a state that is safely Democrat. It was something like D +7 or +6 - in other words about as Democratic as Virginia was Republican 8 years ago.

Huh? Michigan was D+3 or about a 6 point margin above the national average in both 2000 and 2004. Now that margin has grown to about 9 points or so and MI in fact not just swinged, but trended towards Obama.

Huh? I didn't say anything about Michigan margins in the past so none of what you say about that has anything to do with my post and can form a basis for a "huh?" That leaves:"Now that margin has grown to about 9 points or so and MI in fact not just swinged, but trended towards Obama. "

It's true that I had the number there memorized wrong. It was a couple of points higher, which does bring it into border-line solid territory. If it holds at this level it would qualify as solid. The question is whether it actually will though.

I don't know what the whole swing-trend thing is about. I already acknowledged that it swung/trended towards Obama. In fact, that was the whole emphasis of my post, in case you missed it. :P

Oh alright I thought you were trying to say the state was swinging/trending republican which made no sense to me. MI was one of the states Obama seemed to do much better with rural whites, basically following the same pattern as most of the upper midwest and west. That being said it is still not a safe democrat state just a lean state and this should be one of the states republicans need to get more competitive in if they want to win nationally.

Sounds like we agree then. :)

I do think there was some kind of effect here of lean Democratic states and "normal" battlegrounds swinging hard to Obama in the final days. I suspect this may have been because both campaigns were in high-gear here and then McCain pulled out towards the end when he was losing. I sense this happening in Michigan, Nevada and Colorado, maybe New Hampshire as well. I don't think these states would have been Obama's by 5%+ in a national tie.


Title: Re: michigan
Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on November 12, 2008, 09:16:13 PM
No, but it'll make it a lot harder for the Reps to win in 2012.  If a Repub Governor can have good effects on the state between 2010 and 2012, the Repub Pres. candidate may stand a chance, but I think it'll be a while before MI elects a Rep for President.


Title: Re: michigan
Post by: Keep cool-idge on August 12, 2017, 08:53:44 PM
No, but it'll make it a lot harder for the Reps to win in 2012.  If a Repub Governor can have good effects on the state between 2010 and 2012, the Repub Pres. candidate may stand a chance, but I think it'll be a while before MI elects a Rep for President.
Lol 8 years later we can project that Donald trump has won the state of Michigan in closest race in Michigan history