Underlying trend

[Polkergeist]

On a few other threads there has been debate about which states are trending to which party. Hence I'll have a go at mathematically and graphically showing the underlying trends.

The formula that I'm using is:

State Margin of Victory 2004 - State Margin of Victory 2000 - (national margin of victory 2004 - national margin of victory 2000)

Example: Alabama (all in percentages)

2004 GOP- Dem = 25.62 GOP

2000 GOP - Dem = 14.88 GOP

Change of AL victory margin= 10.74 GOP

Change in national victory margin = 2.98 GOP

AL trend = 7.76 GOP
 

Why this formula ?

Any national election will have varying result : cliffhanger, GOP landslide, Dem landslide.

To use a saying, the tide goes in and out. A state may be a toss-up in a national line-ball election  but may be a safe GOP state in a GOP lanslide and vica versa.

So what this formula aims to do is to take out the national movement and measures the indivdual states deviation. This should show where the trend is.

The following map will show this deviation rounded to the nearest whole number and I'll also add the table.

Alabama   7.76% GOP
Alaska   8.38% Dem
Arizona   1.21% GOP
Arkansas   1.33% GOP
California   1.13% Dem
Colorado   6.67% Dem
Connecticut 4.12% GOP
Delaware    2.49% GOP
D. C.   6.62% Dem
Florida    2.02%  GOP
Georgia    1.93% GOP
Hawaii    6.61% GOP
Idaho   4.39% Dem
Illinois   1.31% Dem
Indiana   2.07% GOP
Iowa   2.00% Dem
Kansas    1.60% GOP
Kentucky    1.75% GOP
Louisiana    3.85% GOP
Maine   6.87% Dem
Maryland    0.43% GOP
Massachusetts 0.84% Dem
Michigan   1.27% Dem
Minnesota 4.06% Dem
Mississippi 0.18% Dem
Missouri    0.88% GOP
Montana   7.55% Dem
Nebraska    1.25% GOP
Nevada   3.94% Dem
New Hampshire 5.62% Dem
New Jersey  6.17% GOP
New Mexico 2.13% Dem
New York   3.71% GOP
North Carolina 3.38% Dem
North Dakota 3.22% Dem
Ohio 4.38% Dem
Oklahoma    6.28% GOP
Oregon   6.70% Dem
Pennsylvania 1.31% Dem
Rhode Island 5.35% GOP
South Carolina 1.83% Dem
South Dakota 4.24% Dem
Tennessee  7.43% GOP
Texas 1.44% Dem
Utah  2.07% GOP
Vermont 13.18% Dem
Virginia 2.82% Dem
Washington 4.58% Dem
West Virginia 3.54% GOP
Wisconsin   3.14% Dem
Wyoming   3.25% Dem

[Alcon]

This is good, but does not take into account Nader.

[Gabu]

This is good, but does not take into account Nader.

Given exit polls I've seen from 2000, if you take Nader's totals from 2000 and give 50% of them to Gore and 20% of them to Bush, that would be pretty representative of what 2000 would have been like had Nader not been present.

I'm too tired to do that at the moment, however.

[Polkergeist]

This is good, but does not take into account Nader.

That is a good point however it does need to take into account what the Nader vote did in 2004 and beyond. In 2004 most probably went to Kerry primarily as anti-Bush votes but will they stay in the dem fold or will they drop out and not vote at all. If so then the above map will be more valuable. That being said this asessment means that only time will tell on this matter. Therefore a map adding nader to the 200 calcs would be worth doing.

[Gustaf]

Interesting, seems consistent with most trends: South and plains, parts of the lower Midwest are trending GOP whereas the Atlantic South, the far Northeast, The Northern states, pacific and Southwest are trending Dem. The rustbelt also going better for the Dems due to job losses, probably. It's interesting to note that the lower Northeast, like Delaware and New Jersey seem to have a GOP trend. And also, what's up with Arizona?

[Polkergeist]

OK, these figures have the Nader vote added to the Gore vote in 2000. So these figures could be viwed as a left or right shift.

I have not added the Nader figures in '04 as in that election he was a non-event. If you wanted to vote left you voted against bush, ie: vote Kerry.

Here are the figures:

Alabama   6.14 GOP
Alaska   1.03 Dem
Arizona   1.47 GOP
Arkansas   0.06 GOP
California   0.03 Dem
Colorado   4.14 Dem
Connecticut 5.82 GOP
Delaware   2.31 GOP
D. C.   4.09 Dem
Florida   0.93 GOP
Georgia   0.27 Dem
Hawaii   9.77 GOP
Idaho   4.66 Dem
Illinois   1.83 Dem
Indiana   0.18 GOP
Iowa   2.48 Dem
Kansas   2.25 GOP
Kentucky   0.53 GOP
Louisiana   2.30 GOP
Maine   3.88 Dem
Maryland   0.36 GOP
Massachusetts 2.86 GOP
Michigan   1.99 Dem
Minnesota 1.57 Dem
Mississippi 2.09 Dem
Missouri   0.21 Dem
Montana   4.33 Dem
Nebraska   2.04 GOP
Nevada   4.19 Dem
New Hampshire 4.44 Dem
New Jersey 6.43 GOP
New Mexico 1.30 Dem
New York   4.57 GOP
North Carolina 6.10 Dem
North Dakota 2.66 Dem
Ohio 4.60 Dem
Oklahoma    3.56 GOP
Oregon   4.38 Dem
Pennsylvania 1.93 Dem
Rhode Island  8.75 GOP
South Carolina 3.07 Dem
South Dakota 6.97 Dem
Tennessee 5.65 GOP
Texas   2.01 Dem
Utah   4.00 GOP
Vermont   8.99 Dem
Virginia   3.36 Dem
Washington 3.17 Dem
West Virginia 2.46 Dem
Wisconsin    2.24 Dem
Wyoming   3.85 Dem

The figures above have been rounded to the nearest whole number for the map

[Polkergeist]

Oh, and another thing, this map just shows which states are trending more GOP/Dem compared to each other. If the GOP or the Dems win the nation 60-40 then they will win the states trending against them.

[nclib]

Interesting, seems consistent with most trends: South and plains, parts of the lower Midwest are trending GOP whereas the Atlantic South, the far Northeast, The Northern states, pacific and Southwest are trending Dem. The rustbelt also going better for the Dems due to job losses, probably. It's interesting to note that the lower Northeast, like Delaware and New Jersey seem to have a GOP trend. And also, what's up with Arizona?

Accurate description, though I'm not sure why a lot of these places are trending the way they are. Most of urban Northeast (Maryland to Mass.) is trending Republican--N.J., N.Y., and Conn. are moving right because of 9-11, but I don't know why the rest of the NE corridor is moving right--maybe Gore overperformed in 2000.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Oh, and another thing, this map just shows which states are trending more GOP/Dem compared to each other. If the GOP or the Dems win the nation 60-40 then they will win the states trending against them.

First, a simple four year comparison on a vote for one office is in and of itself an insufficent basis for asserting a 'trend.'

Second, lets look at some of the specific states in which you formula produces a signficant 'trend.':

Connecticut - a Republican trend, or is it just the case Joe Lieberman
                      was the VP nominee in 2000, which increased the D vote
                      in that state in 2000?
Tennessee -  a Republican trend, or is it just that Al Gore was the
                      Presidential nominee in 2000, which increase the D vote
                      in that state in 2000?
N. Carolina -  Is it possible that Edwards helped add votes in that state?
N. Jersey    -  McGreevy!
S. Dakota   -  Daschle turned out the D's this year in a forlorn attempt to
                      save his seat. 
Hawaii        -  As has previously been noted, Hawaii has a history of
                      giving Republican incumbent Presidents seeking reelection
                      a better percentage of the vote than would otherwise be
                     the case.

Alabama     -  Kerry abandoned Alabama (i.e. no real campaign there)
Vermont     -  Bush abandoned Vermont (i.e. no real campaign there)
R. Island    -   Same as Hawaii.

[Alcon]

Oh, and another thing, this map just shows which states are trending more GOP/Dem compared to each other. If the GOP or the Dems win the nation 60-40 then they will win the states trending against them.

First, a simple four year comparison on a vote for one office is in and of itself an insufficent basis for asserting a 'trend.'

Second, lets look at some of the specific states in which you formula produces a signficant 'trend.':

Connecticut - a Republican trend, or is it just the case Joe Lieberman
                      was the VP nominee in 2000, which increased the D vote
                      in that state in 2000?
Tennessee -  a Republican trend, or is it just that Al Gore was the
                      Presidential nominee in 2000, which increase the D vote
                      in that state in 2000?
N. Carolina -  Is it possible that Edwards helped add votes in that state?

This is basically the reason for this. NYC bedroom commuters also helped in Connecticut.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, not McGreevy. Well, maybe a little. But not much. New Jersey this year more moved due to terrorism fears, as did Staten Island.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not really. The Native American vote got out more ())))))))))) and South Dakota is historically against incumbnents. Also, most states with lots of libertarian politics trended against Bush.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have no idea why, but yeah, it does.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think the south trended more Republican in general this year, while Vermont has been trending Democrat for a while. Kerry was sort of the perfect candidate for Vermont, actually. I think the culture there has fundamentally changed.

Rhode Island probably trended against Kerry because abortion became a major issue this year more than in 2000.

Good analysis, though.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Interesting, seems consistent with most trends: South and plains, parts of the lower Midwest are trending GOP whereas the Atlantic South, the far Northeast, The Northern states, pacific and Southwest are trending Dem. The rustbelt also going better for the Dems due to job losses, probably. It's interesting to note that the lower Northeast, like Delaware and New Jersey seem to have a GOP trend. And also, what's up with Arizona?

NJ and DE were a suburban security family vote.  There's no trend, just issues.  And guess what, Kerry still won by 6 in Jersey and I think 8 in DE. 

[TeePee4Prez]

Interesting, seems consistent with most trends: South and plains, parts of the lower Midwest are trending GOP whereas the Atlantic South, the far Northeast, The Northern states, pacific and Southwest are trending Dem. The rustbelt also going better for the Dems due to job losses, probably. It's interesting to note that the lower Northeast, like Delaware and New Jersey seem to have a GOP trend. And also, what's up with Arizona?

NJ and DE were a suburban security family vote.  There's no trend, just issues.  And guess what, Kerry still won by 6 in Jersey and I think 8 in DE. 

South Jersey didn't get hit as hard with the GOP as much as North Jersey did.  9/11 flipped Monmouth County and kept many others closer.  South Jersey had some enthusiasm for Kerry as did many Philly burbs.  For some reason, the Philly metro trended more Demcratic than last time.  Montgomery, Bucks, and especially Delaware Counties were particularly very good to Kerry and the Dems.  My analysis of Philly area seats:

PA 1 and 2:  I think a socialist could beat the GOP in these seats.

PA-6:  Come on liberal yuppies, we need just a few more of you guys to flip Gerlach (R) out.  I thought Lois was gonna win and went to bed thinking that!

PA-7:  Curt Weldon's retirement = Dem pickup if competent candidate.  Delaware Co. still has decent GOP machine, but like Montco, it's fading.

PA-8:  Give it 4-8 years, seat flips.  Democrats will put up solid candidate in 2006.  Bucks County Dems are starting to organize.  Fitzpatrick should have NEVER won, but since the Dems put up a weak Ginny Schrader, even the Inquirer and DN endorsed Fitz.  Dems should have matched Fitz with Sandy Miller.

PA-13:  2004 was Custer's Last Stand for the GOP in thsi district.  Even with Section 8 being a heavily talked about issue in NE Philly and Melissa Brown having her name almost exclusively tied to reforming it, she STILL lost by 23 points in NE Philly and 15 overall.  Registration is even between Ds and Rs, but many Republicans, especially in Montgomery County, are RINOs.  2006 best GOP possibilities aree Bruce Castor and John Taylor, but even then I don't see a victory.

PA-15:  Needs strong, populist Democrat to run after Dent's retirement.  Philly/NYC transplants could flip seat in about 10-16 years.  Liberals could never win this seat at least in the short run. 

PA-16 (lower Chester Co.): No chance.  GOP for a long while.

NJ-1:  Dem stronghold. 

NJ-2:  GOP stronghold.  No chance for Dems.

NJ-3:  Saxton retirement = possible Dem pickup if decent candidate.  Western parts of district are trending Democratic, but still traverses redneck "Pine Barren" region in east and some wealthy areas such as Moorestown.   

[Keystone Phil]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And who's this "solid candidate?" All I hear is "Watch out for 2006. Fitzpatrick is done." Yeah....ok. Get used to Fitzpatrick because unless he runs for higher office, he'll be in Congress for awhile.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Weak campaign for Brown and strong straight Dem voting. Keep thinking Schwartz won because she's in touch with the district. You'll see when 2006 roles around and people start seeing her record. 

[TeePee4Prez]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And who's this "solid candidate?" All I hear is "Watch out for 2006. Fitzpatrick is done." Yeah....ok. Get used to Fitzpatrick because unless he runs for higher office, he'll be in Congress for awhile.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Weak campaign for Brown and strong straight Dem voting. Keep thinking Schwartz won because she's in touch with the district. You'll see when 2006 roles around and people start seeing her record. 

I've heard a lot of whining about PA-13 from you and you know who.  I can whine too about PA-8, we had a weakling because Greenwood stopped dead in the middle of his campaign and we couldn't ax Schrader who by all rights was expected to be cannon fodder for Greenwood.  PA-13 would haver NEVER voted Brown considering Bush and how much she agrees with him.  That's the reason she lost, not Fogliani.  It is a moderate-left district- GET OVER IT!  I'll admit Schwartz is not perfect, but her voting record will correlate to the average PA-13 resident much closer than Brown's pro-corporate record would.  There are some far-left thing I expect out of Schwartz, but only a few social issues may be out of touch, but generally, I think she fits us best.  It sucks for you that your views accurately fit PA-5 or 9 better, not PA-13.  My views are more in touch with the district than yours.       

[Keystone Phil]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And who's this "solid candidate?" All I hear is "Watch out for 2006. Fitzpatrick is done." Yeah....ok. Get used to Fitzpatrick because unless he runs for higher office, he'll be in Congress for awhile.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Weak campaign for Brown and strong straight Dem voting. Keep thinking Schwartz won because she's in touch with the district. You'll see when 2006 roles around and people start seeing her record. 

I've heard a lot of whining about PA-13 from you and you know who.  I can whine too about PA-8, we had a weakling because Greenwood stopped dead in the middle of his campaign and we couldn't ax Schrader who by all rights was expected to be cannon fodder for Greenwood.  PA-13 would haver NEVER voted Brown considering Bush and how much she agrees with him.  That's the reason she lost, not Fogliani.  It is a moderate-left district- GET OVER IT!  I'll admit Schwartz is not perfect, but her voting record will correlate to the average PA-13 resident much closer than Brown's pro-corporate record would.  There are some far-left thing I expect out of Schwartz, but only a few social issues may be out of touch, but generally, I think she fits us best.  It sucks for you that your views accurately fit PA-5 or 9 better, not PA-13.  My views are more in touch with the district than yours.       

You did have a weak candidate but you can't use that as a reason for why you will win in 2006. Who is your solid candidate?

As for Brown, the campaign was weak. I love how you can make excuses for little Brendan and "Ginny will prevail!" Schrader but no way could I say a weak campaign hurt Brown. She received 47% of the vote in 2002 and they knew she was close to Bush. Now I'll hear "Well it was right after 9/11..." Doesn't matter. Bush would have still lost here. That argument doesn't work.

You watch when 2006 roles around how the people of PA 13 react to her record. I say that she gets no more than 52%.

Now my views might not be perfect for PA 13. I'm the first to admit that. However, don't start that your views are closer. You're more of a PA 2 guy. If you honestly think that people of this district would vote for you after fully understanding your Dean-like views, you are kidding yourself.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

NJ-2:  GOP stronghold.  No chance for Dems.

actually, Gore won that district, I don't know about Kerry, but since Bush's gains in NJ probably won't carry over to future years, this district is winnable once LoBiondo retires.

[Keystone Phil]

NJ-2:  GOP stronghold.  No chance for Dems.

actually, Gore won that district, I don't know about Kerry, but since Bush's gains in NJ probably won't carry over to future years, this district is winnable once LoBiondo retires.

NJ 2 is staying Republican for awhile and that means even after LoBiondo retires.

[ATFFL]

NJ and DE were a suburban security family vote.  There's no trend, just issues.  And guess what, Kerry still won by 6 in Jersey and I think 8 in DE. 

Hockeydude is right, this is likely not a trend but an issue driven swing.  May be the starting point for the state for a while though if security remains an issue.

NJ is winnable for a Republican, but they woudl have to be very centrist in their views and up against a far left democrat.

[TeePee4Prez]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And who's this "solid candidate?" All I hear is "Watch out for 2006. Fitzpatrick is done." Yeah....ok. Get used to Fitzpatrick because unless he runs for higher office, he'll be in Congress for awhile.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Weak campaign for Brown and strong straight Dem voting. Keep thinking Schwartz won because she's in touch with the district. You'll see when 2006 roles around and people start seeing her record. 

I've heard a lot of whining about PA-13 from you and you know who.  I can whine too about PA-8, we had a weakling because Greenwood stopped dead in the middle of his campaign and we couldn't ax Schrader who by all rights was expected to be cannon fodder for Greenwood.  PA-13 would haver NEVER voted Brown considering Bush and how much she agrees with him.  That's the reason she lost, not Fogliani.  It is a moderate-left district- GET OVER IT!  I'll admit Schwartz is not perfect, but her voting record will correlate to the average PA-13 resident much closer than Brown's pro-corporate record would.  There are some far-left thing I expect out of Schwartz, but only a few social issues may be out of touch, but generally, I think she fits us best.  It sucks for you that your views accurately fit PA-5 or 9 better, not PA-13.  My views are more in touch with the district than yours.       

Now my views might not be perfect for PA 13. I'm the first to admit that. However, don't start that your views are closer. You're more of a PA 2 guy. If you honestly think that people of this district would vote for you after fully understanding your Dean-like views, you are kidding yourself.

A Santoomey Republican in PA 13 is as rare as a 2 dollar bill.  There are more Dean fans in PA 13 than Santoomeyites.  I'll also admit that yes I belong more in Northern Liberties, Society Hill, or Queen Village than the Northeast.   The social conservatism up here is sickening at times, but people like you are scattered yet far from the majority.  My views stand a much better chance in PA 13 than yours.  Go through a Union Hall and tell them how much you love your Club for Growth views.  You'll be in the emergency room so fast you won't know what hit you.  Granted, same goes for my socailly liberal views among the Knights of Columbus.  Man would this race ever be interesting!

[Keystone Phil]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And who's this "solid candidate?" All I hear is "Watch out for 2006. Fitzpatrick is done." Yeah....ok. Get used to Fitzpatrick because unless he runs for higher office, he'll be in Congress for awhile.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Weak campaign for Brown and strong straight Dem voting. Keep thinking Schwartz won because she's in touch with the district. You'll see when 2006 roles around and people start seeing her record. 

I've heard a lot of whining about PA-13 from you and you know who.  I can whine too about PA-8, we had a weakling because Greenwood stopped dead in the middle of his campaign and we couldn't ax Schrader who by all rights was expected to be cannon fodder for Greenwood.  PA-13 would haver NEVER voted Brown considering Bush and how much she agrees with him.  That's the reason she lost, not Fogliani.  It is a moderate-left district- GET OVER IT!  I'll admit Schwartz is not perfect, but her voting record will correlate to the average PA-13 resident much closer than Brown's pro-corporate record would.  There are some far-left thing I expect out of Schwartz, but only a few social issues may be out of touch, but generally, I think she fits us best.  It sucks for you that your views accurately fit PA-5 or 9 better, not PA-13.  My views are more in touch with the district than yours.       

Now my views might not be perfect for PA 13. I'm the first to admit that. However, don't start that your views are closer. You're more of a PA 2 guy. If you honestly think that people of this district would vote for you after fully understanding your Dean-like views, you are kidding yourself.

A Santoomey Republican in PA 13 is as rare as a 2 dollar bill.  There are more Dean fans in PA 13 than Santoomeyites.  I'll also admit that yes I belong more in Northern Liberties, Society Hill, or Queen Village than the Northeast.   The social conservatism up here is sickening at times, but people like you are scattered yet far from the majority.  My views stand a much better chance in PA 13 than yours.  Go through a Union Hall and tell them how much you love your Club for Growth views.  You'll be in the emergency room so fast you won't know what hit you.  Granted, same goes for my socailly liberal views among the Knights of Columbus.  Man would this race ever be interesting!

Yeah. I love how the "tolerant liberals" of the union halls would put me in the emergency room because I disagree with them. Oh well. These are the same clowns that want Johnny Doc as Mayor and wonder why our city is sinking and sinking fast.

My social views would be a much better fit for the NE Philly part of this district. You have to give me that. Your social views would be appreciated in Montco. When it comes to economics, you'd have the edge in the NE but while my Club for Growth economics wouldn't be welcomed with open arms in Montco, you'd probably find a good amount of Club for Growth members instead of your average union guy out there. I wouldn't say you would have that much of an edge in PA 13.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

NJ-2:  GOP stronghold.  No chance for Dems.

actually, Gore won that district, I don't know about Kerry, but since Bush's gains in NJ probably won't carry over to future years, this district is winnable once LoBiondo retires.

NJ 2 is staying Republican for awhile and that means even after LoBiondo retires.

A Gore district can't be safe Republican. Bush might've won it this time but judging by the county numbers it was by only a point or two if he did.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And who's this "solid candidate?" All I hear is "Watch out for 2006. Fitzpatrick is done." Yeah....ok. Get used to Fitzpatrick because unless he runs for higher office, he'll be in Congress for awhile.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Weak campaign for Brown and strong straight Dem voting. Keep thinking Schwartz won because she's in touch with the district. You'll see when 2006 roles around and people start seeing her record. 

I've heard a lot of whining about PA-13 from you and you know who.  I can whine too about PA-8, we had a weakling because Greenwood stopped dead in the middle of his campaign and we couldn't ax Schrader who by all rights was expected to be cannon fodder for Greenwood.  PA-13 would haver NEVER voted Brown considering Bush and how much she agrees with him.  That's the reason she lost, not Fogliani.  It is a moderate-left district- GET OVER IT!  I'll admit Schwartz is not perfect, but her voting record will correlate to the average PA-13 resident much closer than Brown's pro-corporate record would.  There are some far-left thing I expect out of Schwartz, but only a few social issues may be out of touch, but generally, I think she fits us best.  It sucks for you that your views accurately fit PA-5 or 9 better, not PA-13.  My views are more in touch with the district than yours.       

Now my views might not be perfect for PA 13. I'm the first to admit that. However, don't start that your views are closer. You're more of a PA 2 guy. If you honestly think that people of this district would vote for you after fully understanding your Dean-like views, you are kidding yourself.

A Santoomey Republican in PA 13 is as rare as a 2 dollar bill.  There are more Dean fans in PA 13 than Santoomeyites.  I'll also admit that yes I belong more in Northern Liberties, Society Hill, or Queen Village than the Northeast.   The social conservatism up here is sickening at times, but people like you are scattered yet far from the majority.  My views stand a much better chance in PA 13 than yours.  Go through a Union Hall and tell them how much you love your Club for Growth views.  You'll be in the emergency room so fast you won't know what hit you.  Granted, same goes for my socailly liberal views among the Knights of Columbus.  Man would this race ever be interesting!

Yeah. I love how the "tolerant liberals" of the union halls would put me in the emergency room because I disagree with them. Oh well. These are the same clowns that want Johnny Doc as Mayor and wonder why our city is sinking and sinking fast.

My social views would be a much better fit for the NE Philly part of this district. You have to give me that. Your social views would be appreciated in Montco. When it comes to economics, you'd have the edge in the NE but while my Club for Growth economics wouldn't be welcomed with open arms in Montco, you'd probably find a good amount of Club for Growth members instead of your average union guy out there. I wouldn't say you would have that much of an edge in PA 13.

Alright Phil, a far left Democrat beat a center-right Republican in PA 13 by 13 points. You think a center-left Democrat wouldn't be a far right Republican? (and before you say you aren't far right, the point is you are further right than Melissa Brown)

[Keystone Phil]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And who's this "solid candidate?" All I hear is "Watch out for 2006. Fitzpatrick is done." Yeah....ok. Get used to Fitzpatrick because unless he runs for higher office, he'll be in Congress for awhile.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Weak campaign for Brown and strong straight Dem voting. Keep thinking Schwartz won because she's in touch with the district. You'll see when 2006 roles around and people start seeing her record. 

I've heard a lot of whining about PA-13 from you and you know who.  I can whine too about PA-8, we had a weakling because Greenwood stopped dead in the middle of his campaign and we couldn't ax Schrader who by all rights was expected to be cannon fodder for Greenwood.  PA-13 would haver NEVER voted Brown considering Bush and how much she agrees with him.  That's the reason she lost, not Fogliani.  It is a moderate-left district- GET OVER IT!  I'll admit Schwartz is not perfect, but her voting record will correlate to the average PA-13 resident much closer than Brown's pro-corporate record would.  There are some far-left thing I expect out of Schwartz, but only a few social issues may be out of touch, but generally, I think she fits us best.  It sucks for you that your views accurately fit PA-5 or 9 better, not PA-13.  My views are more in touch with the district than yours.       

Now my views might not be perfect for PA 13. I'm the first to admit that. However, don't start that your views are closer. You're more of a PA 2 guy. If you honestly think that people of this district would vote for you after fully understanding your Dean-like views, you are kidding yourself.

A Santoomey Republican in PA 13 is as rare as a 2 dollar bill.  There are more Dean fans in PA 13 than Santoomeyites.  I'll also admit that yes I belong more in Northern Liberties, Society Hill, or Queen Village than the Northeast.   The social conservatism up here is sickening at times, but people like you are scattered yet far from the majority.  My views stand a much better chance in PA 13 than yours.  Go through a Union Hall and tell them how much you love your Club for Growth views.  You'll be in the emergency room so fast you won't know what hit you.  Granted, same goes for my socailly liberal views among the Knights of Columbus.  Man would this race ever be interesting!

Yeah. I love how the "tolerant liberals" of the union halls would put me in the emergency room because I disagree with them. Oh well. These are the same clowns that want Johnny Doc as Mayor and wonder why our city is sinking and sinking fast.

My social views would be a much better fit for the NE Philly part of this district. You have to give me that. Your social views would be appreciated in Montco. When it comes to economics, you'd have the edge in the NE but while my Club for Growth economics wouldn't be welcomed with open arms in Montco, you'd probably find a good amount of Club for Growth members instead of your average union guy out there. I wouldn't say you would have that much of an edge in PA 13.

Alright Phil, a far left Democrat beat a center-right Republican in PA 13 by 13 points. You think a center-left Democrat wouldn't be a far right Republican?

First off, I'm not a far right Republican. If you'd like to start that again, be my guest but you won't win.

Secondly, the far left Dem beat a center right Republican because of 1) a weak campaign on Brown's part and 2) strong straight Dem voting. If Brown would have run a stronger campaign (the campaign manager was a complete joke) she could have won. Schwartz won't come close to the margin of victory that she had this year in 2006.

Finally, I think BacardiLimon would have an edge here but not a big edge. He's not a center left Democrat. Look at what he stated in the Schwartz vs. Street thread. He considered voting for the Socialist party candidate in the 2003 Mayoral election. Does that sound center left?

[Gabu]

NJ-2:  GOP stronghold.  No chance for Dems.

actually, Gore won that district, I don't know about Kerry, but since Bush's gains in NJ probably won't carry over to future years, this district is winnable once LoBiondo retires.

Well, here's the 2000 results in NJ:



...and here are the 2004 results:



Given that here are the congressional districts:



...it would seem to me that Kerry did quite comparably to Gore in that CD, and even if he didn't win it due to that one county now going Republican, it was close.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

read my edit to see what I meant by far right Republican.

The reason he considered voting for a Socialist was because he was disgusted by Street and didn't want to vote for a Republican. Is supersoulty far right for voting for the Constitution Party for Senate? Voting for a third party candidate as a protest vote doesn't mean you agree with all their extremist views.