2008

[Shira]

In 2008 the GOP will win MN, WI and IA
Dem will win FL, VA and AZ.

It's the trend, stupid.

[J-Mann]

Er...I don't see half of your prediction coming true.  The GOP may win MN, WI, and IA, but it looks like this election will produce a higher win percentage for Bush in FL and AZ.  As for VA...I don't know.  I'm sure the Democrats would rather have North Carolina.  This year.

[DFLofMN]

MN will still be Dem.  I am not going to let go until it happens.  What about CO and NV for the GOP?

[Alcon]

I'd say MN, WI, and IA for GOP.

I'd say NV for Democrats, about 50-50 on CO, and much closer in VA but still GOP advantage (the same goes for NC, although less pronounced).

[Sam Spade]

This is actually a great topic.  Demographic distribution is one of the coolest things to study in the US and so misunderstood.

NV, CO, and AZ are trending Dem, albeit very slowly, but in that order.

WI, MN, and IA are trending Rep, albeit very slowly, but in that order.

VA is trending Dem, but will probably stabilize at slight GOP, much like the rest of the nation.  There is growth in DC suburbs (Dem) and also in other suburbs of VA (Rep), so the trend will be gradual.

FL is growing on all sides and in all places.  Predicting its future is, should we say, impossible.

[Sam Spade]

NC will grow more GOP, as the Rep exurbs of Charlotte are the key growth in the state.  This also oddly enough, makes SC more Rep as time goes by.

Don't let this election fool you, that's where it's headed.

[AuH2O]

Correct.

It's also a major fallacy to think VA is trending hard Dem. It's actually getting more conservative fiscally, but somewhat more liberal socially.

No one familiar with Mark Warner's successful campaign will tell you Virginia is trending Dem. He had to run far to the right of where, say, Chuck Robb was (though similar to Wilder).

Virginia will stabilize as solid GOP turf, just not to the degree of the deep South or farm states.

[MODU]

In 2008 the GOP will win MN, WI and IA
Dem will win FL, VA and AZ.

It's the trend, stupid.

It's a stupid trend, hun.  It all depends on the candidate.

[TheOldLine]

Sam:  RE: WI, MN, IA.... it is interesting to note that the Kerry campaign seems to indicate that IA will be the first of those three they would lose this year.

TheOldLine

[Shira]

This is actually a great topic.  Demographic distribution is one of the coolest things to study in the US and so misunderstood.

NV, CO, and AZ are trending Dem, albeit very slowly, but in that order.

WI, MN, and IA are trending Rep, albeit very slowly, but in that order.

VA is trending Dem, but will probably stabilize at slight GOP, much like the rest of the nation.  There is growth in DC suburbs (Dem) and also in other suburbs of VA (Rep), so the trend will be gradual.

FL is growing on all sides and in all places.  Predicting its future is, should we say, impossible.

There is more and more separation between Dems and Reps. Reps are more tending to migrate to Rep states and the Dems exactly the same.
So the Rep becomes more Rep and the Dem - more Dem.

In AZ, VA and particular in FL the GOP lost substantial ground since 1988. FL could go for the Dem as early as 2004. AZ and VA will wait until 2008. The same situation in reverse exists with WI, IA, and MN.

Notice that geographically many of the battleground states are concentrated in a specific area where they have borders with blue states and red states. Since not all the elections are balanced like the 2000 election, you have to evaluate the power of a party in a state by comparing its number in the state to its national number in the same election cycle.   If you look into these numbers you'll see that OH, AR, NM and PA are very stable in their voting.  GA and SC are also very stable around the 55%-57% to the GOP. The reason, I believe, is a strong black migration to these states which balances the GOP gain of power among southern whites.

[J-Mann]

There is more and more separation between Dems and Reps. Reps are more tending to migrate to Rep states and the Dems exactly the same.
So the Rep becomes more Rep and the Dem - more Dem.

In AZ, VA and particular in FL the GOP lost substantial ground since 1988. FL could go for the Dem as early as 2004. AZ and VA will wait until 2008. The same situation in reverse exists with WI, IA, and MN.

Notice that geographically many of the battleground states are concentrated in a specific area where they have borders with blue states and red states. Since not all the elections are balanced like the 2000 election, you have to evaluate the power of a party in a state by comparing its number in the state its national number in the same election cycle.   If you look into these numbers you'll see that OH, AR, NM and PA are very stable in their voting.  GA and SC are also very stable around the 55%-57% to the GOP. The reason, I believe, is a strong black migration to these states which balances the GOP gain of power among southern whites.

OK, there is something to trends, and perhaps your analyses are numerically well-supported, but like MODU said, it all depends on the candidate. 

Clinton won both Arizona and Florida in 1996 and came within 2% in Virginia.  Obviously he was a strong candidate who threw the trends down the drain.  A strong GOP candidate in 2008 could appear to reverse trends; perhaps Bush will even reverse them this year.  So it's not the trend; it's the candidate, stupid.

Republicans are tending to migrate to Republican states and Democrats to Democratic states?  I'm sorry, you've lost me on that logic.  Wasn't your original argument that trends were changing, not solidifying?

[Shira]

There is more and more separation between Dems and Reps. Reps are more tending to migrate to Rep states and the Dems exactly the same.
So the Rep becomes more Rep and the Dem - more Dem.

In AZ, VA and particular in FL the GOP lost substantial ground since 1988. FL could go for the Dem as early as 2004. AZ and VA will wait until 2008. The same situation in reverse exists with WI, IA, and MN.

Notice that geographically many of the battleground states are concentrated in a specific area where they have borders with blue states and red states. Since not all the elections are balanced like the 2000 election, you have to evaluate the power of a party in a state by comparing its number in the state its national number in the same election cycle.   If you look into these numbers you'll see that OH, AR, NM and PA are very stable in their voting.  GA and SC are also very stable around the 55%-57% to the GOP. The reason, I believe, is a strong black migration to these states which balances the GOP gain of power among southern whites.

OK, there is something to trends, and perhaps your analyses are numerically well-supported, but like MODU said, it all depends on the candidate. 

Clinton won both Arizona and Florida in 1996 and came within 2% in Virginia.  Obviously he was a strong candidate who threw the trends down the drain.  A strong GOP candidate in 2008 could appear to reverse trends; perhaps Bush will even reverse them this year.  So it's not the trend; it's the candidate, stupid.

Republicans are tending to migrate to Republican states and Democrats to Democratic states?  I'm sorry, you've lost me on that logic.  Wasn't your original argument that trends were changing, not solidifying?

Again:
To evaluate the power of a party in a state I am not looking at the number they got in the state but rather at the difference between the national number and the state number.
In 1984, for example, president Reagan won in MA 51.2%-48.4%. Nevertheless this 48.4% the Dems got was by 7.84% better than the national number that they got in 1984 which was 40.56%.
In 1996 Clinton got 61.47% in MA and 49.23% nationally which makes 12.24% difference or "real power".
So in the 12 years from 1984 to 1996 the "real power" of the Dems in MA grew by 4.4% from 7.84% to 12.24% which is around 0.36% per year. This is about the same pace the Dems in MA grew from 1996 to 2004.

[J-Mann]

Sorry, Shira; I think you're making things way too complicated and basing them on something that is in no way scientific.  It only looks like a complex mathematical formula.

[Shira]

Sorry, Shira; I think you're making things way too complicated and basing them on something that is in no way scientific.  It only looks like a complex mathematical formula.

We are talking about trend and how to measure it through the different types of elections. There have been elections like 1984, like 1996 (w Perot) and like 2004 (a balanced one). If you only take the raw numbers without the necessary adjustments you'll get bazaar numbers. This is exactly "comparing apples with oranges”. The “real power” that I mentioned previously is the number by which we evaluate the trend.

[J-Mann]

We are talking about trend and how to measure it through the different types of elections. There have been elections like 1984, like 1996 (w Perot) and like 2004 (a balanced one). If you only take the raw numbers without the necessary adjustments you'll get bazaar numbers. This is exactly "comparing apples with oranges”. The “real power” that I mentioned previously is the number by which we evaluate the trend.

When Virginia goes to a Democrat, I'll owe you a drink.  How about that?

[jacob_101]

In 2008 the GOP will win MN, WI and IA
Dem will win FL, VA and AZ.

It's the trend, stupid.

I agree with the Upper Midwest going Republican(MN is iffy).  I agree with FL and VA trending Democrat.

I totally disagree with AZ.  It was trending Democrat, now I think it's at a standstill.  Bush will get 60% of the white vote and 45% of the hispanic vote.

[ian]

In 2008, we will win all of these states b/c Kerry is going to cruise to re-election.  (Sorry, I know that's obnoxious, but positive thinking=positive results.)  But in 2012, I believe that MN, WI, CA, WA, and others will definitely go Repub, but NC, CO, NV, SC, GA, FL, and others will go Dem.

[A18]

I agree that Kerry will easily get reelected to the U.S. Senate in 2008. Question is, what does that have to do with the presidential race?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Something I was told when I wuz little: Every Action has an Equal and Opposite Reaction

[Light Touch]

Zzzz...

I love how Shira's posts always seem to elicit the same histrionics.

My prediction:  MD goes R in '08, behind a moderate Republican candidate.

[A18]

In 2008, we will win all of these states b/c Kerry is going to cruise to re-election.  (Sorry, I know that's obnoxious, but positive thinking=positive results.)  But in 2012, I believe that MN, WI, CA, WA, and others will definitely go Repub, but NC, CO, NV, SC, GA, FL, and others will go Dem.

So when is Kerry is going to cruise to reelection again?

[phk]

the DC suburbs are slowly trending VA, in the Democrat section; but it will be a while before a Democrat can win it. Maybe Warner can.

[Bogart]

Arizona's Democratic "trend" is only as strong as the Democrats strength with Hispanics. Obviously, this is a huge demographic. Bush did pretty well in 2004 with Hispanics. They are not as monolithic in voting Democrat as other minorities tend to be.

Also, keep in mind that 60% of Arizona's votes lie in Maricopa County. East Valley cities like Mesa, Gilbert and Tempe have a very strong Mormon influence and tend to be overwhelmingly Republican. The real wild card may be explosive growth in the west Valley. A lot of Californians are getting sick of California and moving here.

If I had to make a bet, I'd say Arizona will be the last of the Desert Southwest to make the switch--if ever.

[phk]

I agree, NV, NM, Colorado will switch before AZ

[Sam Spade]

Democrat strength in the Southwest is entirely dependent on whether this election is an outlier or a trend.

If Republicans can get 40% of the Hispanic votes consistently (along with their normal 60% or so of white voters), Arizona and Colorado will continue to be out of play and Nevada and New Mexico will be advantage to Republicans.

If the Democrats make this result an outlier, rather than a trend, they will have an advantage in New Mexico, Nevada will trend their way and its possible they can start to examine Colorado and Arizona, in that order.

That being said, Arizona is clearly the most conservative state of the four with Colorado not far behind (Republican strength there fell this year because of the excellent Senate candidate Salazar).  Nevada, then New Mexico round it out, with New Mexico being the most liberal.