Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 11, 2019, 06:23:11 am
News: 2019 Gubernatorial Predictions close today at noon

  Atlas Forum
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results
  2012 U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderators: Torie, Senator ON Progressive)
  Obama/Biden falling back to Generic D Levels in IL and DE
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Obama/Biden falling back to Generic D Levels in IL and DE  (Read 3503 times)
Skill and Chance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,730
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 20, 2012, 08:47:08 pm »

Why did this happen?  IL in 2008 seemed like a one-time thing, but DE is particularly surprising when neighboring and demographically similar MD actually swung toward Obama/Biden over 2008.
Logged
mileslunn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,684
Canada


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 20, 2012, 10:57:50 pm »

Maryland is more urban and has a larger minority population although Delaware is large too.  Never mind if you compare to 2004, Obama still did much better than Kerry in both Delaware and Illinois.  The 2008 results were anomalies so I think you saw a return to more normal results albeit on the high side for the Democrats in both states.  I think a better question to ask is why the GOP did as bad as it did in Massachusetts (Romney's home state), Michigan (Romney's birth state), and Wisconsin (Ryan's home state).  In both Michigan and Wisconsin, Obama did better than both Gore and Kerry despite the fact the GOP ticket in those two had no connection to either state. 
Logged
Skill and Chance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,730
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 20, 2012, 11:26:52 pm »

Maryland is more urban and has a larger minority population although Delaware is large too.  Never mind if you compare to 2004, Obama still did much better than Kerry in both Delaware and Illinois.  The 2008 results were anomalies so I think you saw a return to more normal results albeit on the high side for the Democrats in both states.  I think a better question to ask is why the GOP did as bad as it did in Massachusetts (Romney's home state), Michigan (Romney's birth state), and Wisconsin (Ryan's home state).  In both Michigan and Wisconsin, Obama did better than both Gore and Kerry despite the fact the GOP ticket in those two had no connection to either state. 

Well, culturally Mitt was a horrendously bad fit for Michigan and he hadn't lived there in decades, so that isn't surprising.  Mitt lost MI for the same reason Bush Jr. lost CT.  In another world where Mitt returned to Detroit, made his fortune in cars and was a lead mediator in the auto bailout, he would have easily won Michigan. 

New Hampshire is slightly more surprising, because Mitt was the best fit there of any of his home states.  I think this is more a matter of the state just trending D.  If you look at the rural areas in the western half of the state (NH-02), they are moving like Vermont did last decade.  Mitt did well in wealthy suburban areas, but "East Vermont" was just too much to overcome.  I think you will see Republican nominees increasingly ignore NH from this point on.  It's small, out of the way and an increasingly tough nut to crack even with the right type of nominee.

In the case of Wisconsin, the bottom of the ticket increasingly doesn't matter much.  Add to that some things that Ryan had done in the House that were fundamentally spooky to economic progressives and you have a problem.

Massachusetts is more curious, because Romney does have the right profile for that state as a Boston venture capitalist.  His problems here were similar to Gore in TN.  As connected as both were to their states, they had strayed fundamentally too far from the dominant local values.

In short, this election has basically told us that it is utterly impossible for  pro-life, anti-gay marriage candidates to compete in New England.
Logged
Mangez des pommes !
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 50,679
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 21, 2012, 12:47:46 am »

Home States generally tend to trend away from "their" candidate when he's on the ballot for the second time. CA trended D in 1972, GA trended R in 1980, CA trended D in 1984, AR trended R in 1996, TX trended D in 2004. The only exception in modern era has been Texas in 1992 (which is very surprising, if you consider Clinton's Southern appeal... did Bentsen make that much difference in 1988?).

As I said in another thread, Home States tend to trend away from their native son the second time he's on ballot. Delaware's swing in 2008 was pretty huge, so this is a logical reversion to the mean.

What I find really shocking is that Hawaii somehow found a way to trend dem again.
Logged
Badger
badger
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,364
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 17, 2016, 01:55:01 am »

Maryland is more urban and has a larger minority population although Delaware is large too.  Never mind if you compare to 2004, Obama still did much better than Kerry in both Delaware and Illinois.  The 2008 results were anomalies so I think you saw a return to more normal results albeit on the high side for the Democrats in both states.  I think a better question to ask is why the GOP did as bad as it did in Massachusetts (Romney's home state), Michigan (Romney's birth state), and Wisconsin (Ryan's home state).  In both Michigan and Wisconsin, Obama did better than both Gore and Kerry despite the fact the GOP ticket in those two had no connection to either state. 

Well, culturally Mitt was a horrendously bad fit for Michigan and he hadn't lived there in decades, so that isn't surprising.  Mitt lost MI for the same reason Bush Jr. lost CT.  In another world where Mitt returned to Detroit, made his fortune in cars and was a lead mediator in the auto bailout, he would have easily won Michigan. 

New Hampshire is slightly more surprising, because Mitt was the best fit there of any of his home states.  I think this is more a matter of the state just trending D.  If you look at the rural areas in the western half of the state (NH-02), they are moving like Vermont did last decade.  Mitt did well in wealthy suburban areas, but "East Vermont" was just too much to overcome.  I think you will see Republican nominees increasingly ignore NH from this point on.  It's small, out of the way and an increasingly tough nut to crack even with the right type of nominee.

In the case of Wisconsin, the bottom of the ticket increasingly doesn't matter much.  Add to that some things that Ryan had done in the House that were fundamentally spooky to economic progressives and you have a problem.

Massachusetts is more curious, because Romney does have the right profile for that state as a Boston venture capitalist.  His problems here were similar to Gore in TN.  As connected as both were to their states, they had strayed fundamentally too far from the dominant local values.

In short, this election has basically told us that it is utterly impossible for  pro-life, anti-gay marriage candidates to compete in New England.

Massachusetts isn't that hard to figure out. His presidential campaign rhetoric ran like hell from his record as governor there, and he never failed to bash the state while disowning Obamaca....er, I mean "Romneycare".
Logged
RINO Tom
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,063
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 17, 2016, 12:46:54 pm »

New Hampshire is slightly more surprising, because Mitt was the best fit there of any of his home states.  I think this is more a matter of the state just trending D.  If you look at the rural areas in the western half of the state (NH-02), they are moving like Vermont did last decade.  Mitt did well in wealthy suburban areas, but "East Vermont" was just too much to overcome.  I think you will see Republican nominees increasingly ignore NH from this point on.  It's small, out of the way and an increasingly tough nut to crack even with the right type of nominee.

So... why is Atlas falling for the "NH is a pure Tossup" thing again?

I mean, no one really gives a shlt but you, bro.
Logged
Redban
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 394


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 19, 2016, 09:01:01 am »

Maryland is more urban and has a larger minority population although Delaware is large too.  Never mind if you compare to 2004, Obama still did much better than Kerry in both Delaware and Illinois.  The 2008 results were anomalies so I think you saw a return to more normal results albeit on the high side for the Democrats in both states.  I think a better question to ask is why the GOP did as bad as it did in Massachusetts (Romney's home state), Michigan (Romney's birth state), and Wisconsin (Ryan's home state).  In both Michigan and Wisconsin, Obama did better than both Gore and Kerry despite the fact the GOP ticket in those two had no connection to either state.  

"Let Detroit Go Bankrupt!"
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16,279
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 19, 2016, 05:28:42 pm »

This is not historically uncommon at all; incumbent Presidents and VPs have almost always had less of a home state advantage when running for reelection than in their initial run prior to assuming national office.

Makes sense as they are more of a national figure when running for reelection and less associated with their home state.
Logged
hopper
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,421
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 23, 2016, 07:18:30 pm »
« Edited: July 23, 2016, 07:34:58 pm by hopper »

Maryland is more urban and has a larger minority population although Delaware is large too.  Never mind if you compare to 2004, Obama still did much better than Kerry in both Delaware and Illinois.  The 2008 results were anomalies so I think you saw a return to more normal results albeit on the high side for the Democrats in both states.  I think a better question to ask is why the GOP did as bad as it did in Massachusetts (Romney's home state), Michigan (Romney's birth state), and Wisconsin (Ryan's home state).  In both Michigan and Wisconsin, Obama did better than both Gore and Kerry despite the fact the GOP ticket in those two had no connection to either state.  

"Let Detroit Go Bankrupt!"
Yeah Mitt wasn't for the Auto Bailout.
Logged
hopper
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,421
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 23, 2016, 07:45:07 pm »

Maryland is more urban and has a larger minority population although Delaware is large too.  Never mind if you compare to 2004, Obama still did much better than Kerry in both Delaware and Illinois.  The 2008 results were anomalies so I think you saw a return to more normal results albeit on the high side for the Democrats in both states.  I think a better question to ask is why the GOP did as bad as it did in Massachusetts (Romney's home state), Michigan (Romney's birth state), and Wisconsin (Ryan's home state).  In both Michigan and Wisconsin, Obama did better than both Gore and Kerry despite the fact the GOP ticket in those two had no connection to either state.  

Massachusetts is more curious, because Romney does have the right profile for that state as a Boston venture capitalist.  His problems here were similar to Gore in TN.  As connected as both were to their states, they had strayed fundamentally too far from the dominant local values.

In short, this election has basically told us that it is utterly impossible for  pro-life, anti-gay marriage candidates to compete in New England.
Well I think 2012 Romney NH was more comparable to Gore 2000 TN since both states were pretty close to the close to the National Popular Vote totals.

Massachusetts was just way too Dem for Romney to win at the Presidential Level to win in this partisan environment. Reagan did take the state both times in his election victories(just barely in 1980(41.9-Carter's 41.Cool and by 3% points in 1984.) John Anderson(I) took 15% of the vote in Massachusetts in 1980 which I never knew about, I was shocked when I found that out 10 minutes ago. Massachusetts voted at a PVI of D+8 in 1984.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC