battleground states in 2020?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:29:55 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  battleground states in 2020?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]
Author Topic: battleground states in 2020?  (Read 15466 times)
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: February 24, 2005, 12:34:08 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Although it's starting from a much higher startpoint than pretty much any other city

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Up to a point (it certainly seems to be the case in Westmoreland county) but the increased importence of social issues and the fact that Kerry basically failed to campaign on economic issues towards the end is also a reason (although it can be overstated).

That's just not true, Al.  Pittsburgh is a very changed city, economically, from where it was 30 years ago.  The rusted out steel factories have been riped out and replaced with high-tech jobs areas and shopping centers.  I've seen it with my own two eyes.
Logged
jacob_101
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 647


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: February 24, 2005, 02:03:23 PM »

That makes sense Jacob, though I'd remove Maine, Michigan and Oregon. There is no real sign of a GOP trend there. I would also remove Arizona - very Republican tradition and a lot of ground for Democrats to cover. I also don't think Pennsylvania will have ceased to be a battleground while Ohio still is. Either remove Ohio or bring in PA.

You may be right about MI, but I stand by ME and OR.  In 2000 and 2004
according to the exit polls, a higher percentage of young people voted for Bush than the rest of the population in ME.  It's a rural state which I think in 15 years will swing at least to a tied state.  I still believe that the SW including AZ will trend Democrat due to heavy immigration.  Bush got a good percentage of the hispanic vote, but he appealed to them and many were comfortable with Bush's persona.  I doubt that such a high percentage would vote for a Republican they couldn't identify with as a person.

About PA, I feel if Bush couldn't win it this year than no other conservative Republican will.  They are right next to the NE which is very liberal and after 9/11, if a Republican still can't win PA then I think it's over there, unless a liberal Republican runs.  OH will continue to be a split state, liberals in the north and conservatives in the South.  I don't see that changing anytime soon.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: February 24, 2005, 05:37:26 PM »

Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: February 24, 2005, 05:57:23 PM »

That's just not true, Al.  Pittsburgh is a very changed city, economically, from where it was 30 years ago.  The rusted out steel factories have been riped out and replaced with high-tech jobs areas and shopping centers.  I've seen it with my own two eyes.

True (and I don't think I've denied that). As a non-political point the re-generation of Pittsburgh has been one of the few good points as far as urban areas in the U.S over the past thirty odd years go. Shame it hasn't really spread to some of the inner suburbs just east of the city, although even their the situation is a lot better than it was ten years ago (and the northern suburbs, and I think even some of the western ones now, are doing pretty well).
Logged
TeePee4Prez
Flyers2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,480


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: February 24, 2005, 07:59:43 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

You could be right about that. Having not visited the area myself since 2000 (and that was only to see Carnegie Mellon), I really can't say. Pittsburgh is not behaving like other big cities in trending Democrat... it is trending slightly Republican, and the suburbs are trending major Republican. That could be explained by the New Dealers dying off.

I think Allegheny County will always be Democratic.  One things the Dems must do is court these new NY transplants moving into Monroe, Bucks, Pike, Lehigh, and Northampton Conuties to counteract this.  Supersoulty is right, the New Dealers/old steel mill people are dying and their grandkids are trending GOP.  Why they aren't adopting social liberalism?  I will never know.  My family lineage/political party is weird.  Grandfather was a typical New Dealer (economically left/socially VERY rconservative), father was your typical "I was once a Democrat, but on social values.....", now I on the other hand think they're both to the left of me on trade and I'm more of a DLC Dem on economics, but they are both FAR to the right of me socially.  I know I'm not alone here.
Logged
danwxman
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,532


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: February 24, 2005, 11:26:42 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Although it's starting from a much higher startpoint than pretty much any other city

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Up to a point (it certainly seems to be the case in Westmoreland county) but the increased importence of social issues and the fact that Kerry basically failed to campaign on economic issues towards the end is also a reason (although it can be overstated).

That's just not true, Al.  Pittsburgh is a very changed city, economically, from where it was 30 years ago.  The rusted out steel factories have been riped out and replaced with high-tech jobs areas and shopping centers.  I've seen it with my own two eyes.

Ehh, true in some cases. There's still a LOT of depressed areas though. The Mon valley is still filled with abondoned industrial sites...and even abondoned shopping centers!
Logged
W in 2004
Rookie
**
Posts: 196


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: March 13, 2005, 09:20:40 PM »

I would say that Colorodo and Nevada are drifting to the Democrats quickly enough to be on the Dem side by 2020. Virginia is too but hav ea longer way to go. North Carolina has an even longer way to go.

States that voted for Bush but are likely to be(weak perhaps) lean Democrat by, say, 2020:

Nevada

Colorado

New Mexico

States that voted for Bush but are likely to be battlegrounds in 2020:

Iowa

Florida

Ohio (?)

Virginia

States that voted for Kerry but will lean Republican

None

States that voted for Kerry but will be battlegrounds

Pennsylvania

Wisconsin

Michigan (?)

Minnesota (?)

I agree with your assessment, Gustaf.  I am not sure about Minnesota and Michigan.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: March 14, 2005, 08:10:04 AM »

That makes sense Jacob, though I'd remove Maine, Michigan and Oregon. There is no real sign of a GOP trend there. I would also remove Arizona - very Republican tradition and a lot of ground for Democrats to cover. I also don't think Pennsylvania will have ceased to be a battleground while Ohio still is. Either remove Ohio or bring in PA.

You may be right about MI, but I stand by ME and OR.  In 2000 and 2004
according to the exit polls, a higher percentage of young people voted for Bush than the rest of the population in ME.  It's a rural state which I think in 15 years will swing at least to a tied state.  I still believe that the SW including AZ will trend Democrat due to heavy immigration.  Bush got a good percentage of the hispanic vote, but he appealed to them and many were comfortable with Bush's persona.  I doubt that such a high percentage would vote for a Republican they couldn't identify with as a person.

About PA, I feel if Bush couldn't win it this year than no other conservative Republican will.  They are right next to the NE which is very liberal and after 9/11, if a Republican still can't win PA then I think it's over there, unless a liberal Republican runs.  OH will continue to be a split state, liberals in the north and conservatives in the South.  I don't see that changing anytime soon.

If you say so...what I see is Maine turning from solid GOP to strongly leaning Dem. I don't see that trend reversing anytime soon.

On a related note, it's valuable to try and analyze Bush and Kerry as candidates. I don't think Bush is the generic Republican people make him out to be. He basically been a crazy liberal when it comes to fisal policy, taken a passive, centrist position on social issues, been a santa claus to immigrants and an ultra-hawk on foreign policy.

I see the GOP as held together mainly on foreign policy at the moment. Bush hasn't really done much to make America a more conservative place in terms of abortions, divorces, gay rights and so on. He's stalled liberal progress, which is a winning strategy, but that's it. If the GOP turns more conservative on social issues, they could start losing ground.

Moreover, Bush has been kind of populist, financing huge tax cuts for the poor and middle-class with loans. That is definitely not traditional Republican policy. If the GOP turns more conservative they might lose low-income voters. Finally, Bush is a Texan with lcose ties to Hispanics. A more waspy image in the future with a harsher view towards immigration might hurt the GOP there. All this could change the equation on future elections.

Kerry on the other hand was pretty generic, just a poor candidate.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: March 15, 2005, 11:43:23 AM »


Moreover, Bush has been kind of populist, financing huge tax cuts for the poor and middle-class with loans.

The tax cuts for these groups were insignificant compared to the more traditional Republican tax cuts for the rich.
Logged
jacob_101
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 647


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: March 15, 2005, 02:28:30 PM »

That makes sense Jacob, though I'd remove Maine, Michigan and Oregon. There is no real sign of a GOP trend there. I would also remove Arizona - very Republican tradition and a lot of ground for Democrats to cover. I also don't think Pennsylvania will have ceased to be a battleground while Ohio still is. Either remove Ohio or bring in PA.

You may be right about MI, but I stand by ME and OR.  In 2000 and 2004
according to the exit polls, a higher percentage of young people voted for Bush than the rest of the population in ME.  It's a rural state which I think in 15 years will swing at least to a tied state.  I still believe that the SW including AZ will trend Democrat due to heavy immigration.  Bush got a good percentage of the hispanic vote, but he appealed to them and many were comfortable with Bush's persona.  I doubt that such a high percentage would vote for a Republican they couldn't identify with as a person.

About PA, I feel if Bush couldn't win it this year than no other conservative Republican will.  They are right next to the NE which is very liberal and after 9/11, if a Republican still can't win PA then I think it's over there, unless a liberal Republican runs.  OH will continue to be a split state, liberals in the north and conservatives in the South.  I don't see that changing anytime soon.

If you say so...what I see is Maine turning from solid GOP to strongly leaning Dem. I don't see that trend reversing anytime soon.

On a related note, it's valuable to try and analyze Bush and Kerry as candidates. I don't think Bush is the generic Republican people make him out to be. He basically been a crazy liberal when it comes to fisal policy, taken a passive, centrist position on social issues, been a santa claus to immigrants and an ultra-hawk on foreign policy.

I see the GOP as held together mainly on foreign policy at the moment. Bush hasn't really done much to make America a more conservative place in terms of abortions, divorces, gay rights and so on. He's stalled liberal progress, which is a winning strategy, but that's it. If the GOP turns more conservative on social issues, they could start losing ground.

Moreover, Bush has been kind of populist, financing huge tax cuts for the poor and middle-class with loans. That is definitely not traditional Republican policy. If the GOP turns more conservative they might lose low-income voters. Finally, Bush is a Texan with lcose ties to Hispanics. A more waspy image in the future with a harsher view towards immigration might hurt the GOP there. All this could change the equation on future elections.

Kerry on the other hand was pretty generic, just a poor candidate.

Gustaf,

I agree Bush is not a fiscal conservative.  However, I have to strongly disagree with you on every other point.  Bush does have conservative views on abortion, divorce and gay marriage, he just can't do much about it.  He has stopped federal funding for abortions overseas, but what do you expect him to do past that?  The court decided abortion and gay marriage can be legal and the president has no power to stop that except to nominate conservative judges who interpret the law or a constitutional amendment(impossible).  Conservatives voted for him because of his beliefs, knowing full well that it's an uphill battle and won't necessarily change overnight.

I do agree with you on Bush and hispanics.  I hope the next Republican can keep around 40% of their vote again, but that is also going to be a struggle to maintain.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: March 20, 2005, 10:38:14 AM »

Jacob, I know fully well that there are limits. But I do believe Bush could have done more. Besides, he could have said more. Why didn't he embark on a crusade against gay marriages and abortions, talking about holocausts of the unborn and perverted life-styles?

He's effectively mumbling on those issues, saying that we should care about life, blah, blah, blah. It's very intelligent. Bush has managed to make the culture war about drastic liberal change v centrist/conservative status quo and that's a battle he'll win every time. But I'm not sure the Republicans will be content with that next time around.
Logged
jacob_101
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 647


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: March 23, 2005, 03:12:47 PM »

He probably isn't saying much about those issues because they are not government's primary role.  He probably is more concerned about terrorism, the war in Iraq and economic concerns.  Which is how it should be.  These social issues should be decided by the states and I wish the federal government and federal judges would quit making such things a federal issue.

Partial birth abortion ban.  10-15 states amending there constitutions to define marriage as two people of the opposite sex.  These are just a couple of examples of initiatives that descended from Bush's rhetoric and leadership, so he must be talking just enough about these issues.

And, I am interested to hear what you think about the Terri Shiavo case.  Bush has made his position clear, siding on the side of life. 
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,348


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: October 17, 2017, 02:11:45 AM »

(ignore the distribution of electoral votes)




possible election result?

This would give the election to the Democrats, though not by the margin shown with the current electoral votes distribution, due to the general north to south trend electoral votes have taken over the last few decades.

I'm guessing this is what it'll be like based on some basic trends that I see (long-term and shorter term) with some of the states.


Wow other then MO and AK you basically nailed how the map would like in a 50-50 election.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,999
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: October 17, 2017, 09:35:47 AM »

(ignore the distribution of electoral votes)




possible election result?

This would give the election to the Democrats, though not by the margin shown with the current electoral votes distribution, due to the general north to south trend electoral votes have taken over the last few decades.

I'm guessing this is what it'll be like based on some basic trends that I see (long-term and shorter term) with some of the states.


Wow other then MO and AK you basically nailed how the map would like in a 50-50 election.

AK = Alaska
AR = Arkansas
Logged
America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗
TexArkana
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,385
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: October 17, 2017, 04:06:05 PM »



This map is basically accurate. Good job!
Logged
super6646
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 590
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: October 17, 2017, 06:07:56 PM »


Best map by far, though missing NC, PA, MI, NH, ME, and maybe GA.
Logged
super6646
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 590
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: October 17, 2017, 06:08:59 PM »

(ignore the distribution of electoral votes)




possible election result?

This would give the election to the Democrats, though not by the margin shown with the current electoral votes distribution, due to the general north to south trend electoral votes have taken over the last few decades.

I'm guessing this is what it'll be like based on some basic trends that I see (long-term and shorter term) with some of the states.


Wow other then MO and AK you basically nailed how the map would like in a 50-50 election.

NC is still R+ 6-7, while NH is 50-50.
Logged
super6646
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 590
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: October 17, 2017, 06:10:24 PM »

That makes sense Jacob, though I'd remove Maine, Michigan and Oregon. There is no real sign of a GOP trend there. I would also remove Arizona - very Republican tradition and a lot of ground for Democrats to cover. I also don't think Pennsylvania will have ceased to be a battleground while Ohio still is. Either remove Ohio or bring in PA.

You may be right about MI, but I stand by ME and OR.  In 2000 and 2004
according to the exit polls, a higher percentage of young people voted for Bush than the rest of the population in ME.  It's a rural state which I think in 15 years will swing at least to a tied state.  I still believe that the SW including AZ will trend Democrat due to heavy immigration.  Bush got a good percentage of the hispanic vote, but he appealed to them and many were comfortable with Bush's persona.  I doubt that such a high percentage would vote for a Republican they couldn't identify with as a person.

About PA, I feel if Bush couldn't win it this year than no other conservative Republican will.  They are right next to the NE which is very liberal and after 9/11, if a Republican still can't win PA then I think it's over there, unless a liberal Republican runs.  OH will continue to be a split state, liberals in the north and conservatives in the South.  I don't see that changing anytime soon.

This guy was 100% correct here.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]  
« 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 0.069 seconds with 13 queries.