Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 07, 2019, 04:40:23 pm
News: 2020 Presidential Predictions (Primary) are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: Virginia)
  Here we can contrast elections
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: Here we can contrast elections  (Read 14265 times)
Kingpoleon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 19,430
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: November 21, 2015, 10:59:36 pm »
« edited: November 22, 2015, 11:37:10 am by Kingpoleon »

1976 v. 2000:

Blue: Ford '76, Bush '00
Red: Carter '76, Gore '00
Yellow: Carter '76, Bush '00
Green: Ford '76, Gore '00

Surrendering the cities for the South worked well for Bush.
Logged
/
darthebearnc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,376
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: November 22, 2015, 09:46:46 am »

1976 v. 2000:

Blue: Ford '76, Bush '00
Red: Carter '76, Gore '00
Yellow: Carter '76, Bush '00
Green: Ford '76, Gore '00

Surrendering the cities for the South worked well for Bush.

You have way too many yellow states there.
Logged
Clark Kent
ClarkKent
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,458
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: November 22, 2015, 11:35:07 am »

1976 v. 2000:

Blue: Ford '76, Bush '00
Red: Carter '76, Gore '00
Yellow: Carter '76, Bush '00
Green: Ford '76, Gore '00

Surrendering the cities for the South worked well for Bush.

You have way too many yellow states there.
Just four, Iowa (which should be green) and Alaska, Arizona, and Nevada (which should be blue).
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,514
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: January 05, 2016, 07:57:35 am »
« Edited: January 05, 2016, 04:32:42 pm by pbrower2a »



You have way too many yellow states there.
Just four, Iowa (which should be green) and Alaska, Arizona, and Nevada (which should be blue).

Corrections made.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,514
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: January 05, 2016, 05:15:30 pm »
« Edited: January 05, 2016, 05:39:26 pm by pbrower2a »

I brought up John Anderson in the 1980 election in another Forum. He got only 6.61% of the vote, but with the arguable exception of Ross Perot he was the only third-party or independent Presidential nominee to get votes out of the political center.



John Anderson electoral amount

under 2.5%.....20% saturation
2.5-4.5%.........30% saturation
4.5-6.61%.......40% saturation

6.61% -- national average
6.61%-8.5%....50% saturation
8.5%-10%.......60% saturation
10%-12.5%.....70% saturation
12.5% or more  80% saturation

Below, intensity relates how well Anderson did in 1980:

Now... how the states went in 1992, the first Democratic win for President since 1976:



1996:

Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,514
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: January 05, 2016, 05:45:39 pm »

I brought up John Anderson in the 1980 election in another Forum. He got only 6.61% of the vote, but with the arguable exception of Ross Perot he was the only third-party or independent Presidential nominee to get votes out of the political center.



John Anderson electoral amount

under 2.5%.....20% saturation
2.5-4.5%.........30% saturation
4.5-6.61%.......40% saturation

6.61% -- national average
6.61%-8.5%....50% saturation
8.5%-10%.......60% saturation
10%-12.5%.....70% saturation
12.5% or more  80% saturation

Below, intensity relates how well Anderson did in 1980:

Now... how the states went in 2000, the closest Presidential election in over 100 years:



2004:




Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,514
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: January 05, 2016, 06:08:19 pm »





John Anderson electoral amount

under 2.5%.....20% saturation
2.5-4.5%.........30% saturation
4.5-6.61%.......40% saturation

6.61% -- national average
6.61%-8.5%....50% saturation
8.5%-10%.......60% saturation
10%-12.5%.....70% saturation
12.5% or more  80% saturation

Below, intensity relates how well Anderson did in 1980:

Now... how the states went in 2008



(NE-02 of course went for Obama contrary to Nebraska as a whole)

2012:


Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,514
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: January 05, 2016, 06:22:04 pm »

Amy conclusions?
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,514
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: April 30, 2016, 04:15:28 pm »
« Edited: April 30, 2016, 05:33:05 pm by pbrower2a »

100 years apart, overlay between William Howard Taft and Barack Obama, 1908/2008.

Taft (R) 51.6/321 - Bryan (D) 43.0/162 - Debs (S) 2.8/0
Obama (D) 52.9/365- McCain (R) 45.6/173

Similar percentages of the electoral vote for the winners.



Taft/ McCain blue
Taft/Obama yellow
Bryan/Obama red
Bryan/McCain green

Bryan won all of the former secessionist states, Colorado, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Nevada.  Bryan won seven states by 9% or less; Taft won six states by 9% or less.  Other states were blow-outs.

Clearly different in 1908 from a century later: Alaska, Arizona, Dee Cee,  Hawaii, and New Mexico weren't voting. There was no television or even radio in 1908. Above all, several Southern states did not have free and fair elections (blacks were effectively barred from voting).

Now what if the polarization is on the side of the winner?

FDR (D) 53.4/432 - Dewey (R) 45.9/99  
Obama (D) 52.9/365- McCain (R) 45.6/173

Arizona and New Mexico were voting this time; radio (but not TV) was very much a part of American life. America was well unified in a war going very well in 1944.  Alaska and Hawaii, let alone the District of Columbia, would not vote in 1944. Several states in the South still had no free elections.



FDR/Obama
FDR/McCain
Dewey/McCain
Dewey/Obama

FDR lost only four states by 14% or more, and only three by 5% to 9% (none between 9% to 14%).  His other losses were by 5% or less. He won the other 41 states at the time. Nine were by 5% or less, and another five by 5% to 9%. He won the 22 others by 9% or more.

It is enough to know that Barack Obama won enough states to win with the tipping-point state as Iowa, which he won by 9.54%. He had Reagan-like margins in his wins but Mondale-like losses in many states that he lost. Obama lost fourteen states by 14% or more.

America was terribly rifted in 2008. The 1944 election is a ratification of the successes of one of the most effective Presidents ever. People may disagree on who the greatest, second-greatest, and third-greatest Presidents were, but in some order those are Washington, Lincoln, and FDR. The 2008 election followed a President whose sole success was in getting re-elected.

   

Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,514
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: May 02, 2016, 09:59:22 am »



Now, Eisenhower and Clinton:

   

 
gray -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956
white -- Eisenhower twice, Clinton twice
deep blue -- Republican all four elections
light blue -- Eisenhower twice, Clinton once
yellow-- Eisenhower once, Stevenson once, Clinton twice
dark green -- Stevenson twice, Clinton never
pink -- Stevenson twice, Clinton once
red -- went Democratic in all four elections (Stevenson twice, Clinton twice).

Elections in which the winner gets between 360 and 460 electoral votes will have some overlap. Regional divides are much deeper between Eisenhower wins and Obama wins than between Eisenhower wins and Clinton wins. More states shifted on the margins in the 1950s and 1990s than in Obama wins.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,514
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: June 21, 2016, 02:33:02 pm »
« Edited: August 25, 2016, 08:17:47 pm by pbrower2a »

(Resuscitated with a slight change  for use elsewhere)

Gore, the incumbent VP, inherits the President from a popular President in 2000 -- NOT!



Dole, Dubya twice -- blue
Clinton and Dubya twice-- green (Florida disputed for a month... thus the light shade)
Clinton, Gore, and Kerry -- red
Clinton, Gore, and Dubya -- tan
Clinton, Dubya, and Kerry -- yellow  

No state went from Dole to Gore.

Gore lost fully eleven states that Clinton had won four years earlier... and any one of them could have ensured that the Great Disaster would have not been President.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,514
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: March 03, 2017, 09:10:48 am »
« Edited: March 03, 2017, 09:56:47 am by pbrower2a »

Updated for 2016:

When the state last voted for the losing nominee:



2016
2012
2004
2000
1992


Ohio hasn't voted for the loser of the Presidential election since 1960.
Logged
anthony1691
anty1691
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 367


Political Matrix
E: -8.52, S: -7.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: March 03, 2017, 09:31:22 am »

^^^Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, and Virginia should all be dark red.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,514
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: March 03, 2017, 09:57:20 am »

^^^Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, and Virginia should all be dark red.

Correction noted, and I changed the color scheme.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,514
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: March 03, 2017, 10:08:28 am »

This shows a 36-year realignment. After Carter got crushed in his re-election bid Democrats could not win the Presidency again unless they found a new coalition of voters. While Democrats were picking up what could be described as "Rockefeller Republicans" in the North and West they were steadily losing support among southern white blue-collar workers in states in green   

Carter 1976, Obama 2012   



Carter 1976, Obama twice  red
Carter 1976, Obama once pink
Carter 1976, Obama never yellow
Ford 1976, Obama twice white
Ford 1976, Obama once light blue
Ford 1976, Obama never blue

But --
green -- Carter 1976, Bill Clinton twice, Obama never
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,514
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: March 18, 2017, 02:08:04 pm »

2000-2016. Five elections.



Red -- Democrats all five times
Pink -- Democrats four times; a Republican once
White -- Democrats three times, Republicans twice
Pale blue -- Republicans three times, Democrats twice
Medium blue -- Republicans four times, a Democrat once
Navy -- Republican five times
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,514
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: May 01, 2017, 12:21:34 pm »

Posted in another Forum and perhaps relevant here:

These are the electoral maps that I wish that President Trump contemplate. Red suggests the failure of Al Smith in the 1928 election. Red and white suggest the failure of Herbert Hoover to get re-elected in 1932:




red -- Smith 1928, FDR 1932
white -- Hoover 1928, FDR 1932
blue -- Hoover both years

(Ignore shades)
 

From the landslide that President Trump to which he thought he was entitled because he is so brilliant and wonderful (winning everything but 'unpatriotic' parts of America like DeeCee, Greater Hollywood, some pathetic islands in the Pacific Ocean that the Kenyan fraudulently claimed to be born in, and maybe Ethan Allen's treacherous state and the one that first betrayed George III)... no, I am not showing that fantasy map to the consequences of gross failure of economic stewardship.  The landslide of Hoover in 1928 to the landslide of FDR in 1932 will likely show the biggest shift in popular shift from one President to another and it is likely to stick for a very long time as the largest such shift.     

This could be more relevant if one thinks that the official map is valid. Trump won with a margin of electoral votes more like that of Jimmy Carter.  But Carter would end up with problems that he could not solve, and for which Ronald Reagan offered solutions; also, the states were shifting in their partisan allegiance, but to the detriment of Jimmy Carter. Maybe not the solutions that many Americans would not have liked at the time, but the 1984 election suggested that Reagan did a lot of things right, like lowering many Americans' expectations. Oh, you have a college degree and you hate your job in retail or fast food, but your low pay even worse? There is a solution -- take another such job to supplement your meager earnings, and always remember to show that moronic "Delighted to serve you!" smile! People taking second jobs that they hated as much as their ill-paid first jobs solved lots of economic problems.   




red -- Carter in 1976 and 1980
white -- Carter 1976, Reagan 1980
blue -- Ford in 1976, Reagan in 1980

(Ignore shades).

Just a reminder: it's the next election that matters. It's not that I expect President Trump to be caught with an economic meltdown as bad as that of 1929-1932 or with a diplomatic disaster as severe as the Iranian hostage crisis.  I'm not saying that the President will lose fifteen states that he won in 2016, and for obvious reasons he can't lose 33 that he won in 2016. But two will be enough if one of them is Florida and one of them is Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin and three will be enough if one of them is Pennsylvania and the other two are any pair of Michigan, North Carolina, and Wisconsin.

It will be a long time before les jeux sont faits.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,514
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: December 30, 2018, 01:44:52 pm »

My projection, 2000-2020. Six elections. Basis for 2020: any state that gives a majority of its total vote for House seats to Democrats in 2018 will vote for a Democratic nominee in 2020. A 2018-style electorate defeats Trump, but not in a landslide.

Gubernatorial elections reflect statewide instead of federal issues, and the biggest issue in 2020 will likely be Donald Trump. Not all states had Senate elections, and in one state (California) only Democrats got votes and in two there were two Senate elections (and Minnesota more than offsets Mississippi).
 


Maroon -- Democrats all six times
Red -- Democrats five times; Republican once
Pink -- Democrats four times; Republican twice
White -- Democrats three times, Republicans three times
Medium blue -- Republicans five times, Democrats once
Navy -- Republican all six times

No state will have voted for Republicans four times and Democrats twice unless perhaps North Carolina, which I project as a Republican-leaning state in 2020 based on its House election in 2018..


Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,514
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: January 22, 2019, 01:20:26 pm »
« Edited: October 05, 2019, 10:58:04 am by pbrower2a »

Today I pay attention to one region: the part of America that went from Mexican rule to American rule in the 1840s  (Texas annexation and the American annexation of Alta California from Mexico in 1848, and the Gadsden Purchase of 1853. The states now in this territory include the whole of California, Nevada. Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, more than half of Colorado, and small parts of Wyoming (southwestern and south-central area south of the 42nd parallel of latitude),  southwestern Kansas, and the Oklahoma panhandle. I'm not going to concern myself with Kansas. Oklahoma, or Wyoming.



pink -- Truman 1948; Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956    

As late as 1948 every one of these states voted for Harry Truman (if you are looking for a portent of later elections in 1948, then think again: California was Truman's weakest win among those states in 1948). But that would be the second-to-last time in which a Democratic nominee for President would win either Arizona or Utah. In 1952 and 1956 every one of those states would vote for a Democratic nominee for President. (2020 projects as an election in which Trump has much more chance of losing Arizona than of winning it, but that is an extrapolation of a trend and not a set-in-stone reality yet.  I expect to update this in November 2020).

The elections that say the most about a state are the close ones. 1948 had a close result in the national election. It is safe to say that the New Deal era in American politics came to an end in 1952.

Now consider Kennedy versus Nixon in 1960. Kennedy somehow won Texas, Colorado, and Nevada.

 

Truman 48, Ike 52/56, Kennedy 60 pink,
Truman 48, Ike 52/56, Nixon 60 white

We can largely ignore the electoral disaster that was Barry Goldwater.

Texas is the only one of those states that went for a Democratic nominee for President in either 1968 (all of these states went for Nixon in  1972, for Reagan in 1980 and 1984, and for the elder Bush in 1988 -- all landslides for the Republican. But 1968 and 1976 would be the last times in which Texas would vote for the Democratic nominee for President.  If Texas, which has a large part of the state
similar in political and economic culture to Arkansas (Hope, Arkansas is really close to Texas), could never vote for Clinton, then it then had a strong R trend. 


 

Truman 48, Ike 52/56, Kennedy 60, Nixon 68, Ford 76 pink (R in 72/80/84/88 blowouts) white
Truman 48, Ike 52/56, Kennedy 60, HHH 68, Carter 76 red (R in 72/80/84/88 blowouts) red
Truman 48, Ike 52/56, Nixon 60 white, Ford 76 (R in 72/80/84/88 blowouts) pink

What -- no blue yet? Reagan and the elder Bush utterly wipe out the Democratic nominees in the southwestern United States (unless you want to call Hawaii "southwestern"). But in 1992, Bill Clinton wins California, Colorado, and New Mexico. In 1996 he wins California, Arizona, and New Mexico. Texas was close both times, so it goes white, suggesting a long-term party switch. Utah goes deep blue. Two Clinton wins make a state deep red for now.

 

In the closest election in American history, Gore wins only California and New Mexico among these states. Texas and Utah go to dark blue as Dubya wins the state twice.  Of these states, Kerry wins only California. Nevada goes pink, and New Mexico red.

Thus for 1992-2004

all four times D deep red
Clinton twice, Dubya once red
Clinton twice, Dubya twice pink
Clinton once, Dubya twice light blue

These states do not shift between Obama and Trump. Obama and Hillary Clinton win the same states in this group. Texas, Utah, and Arizona went for the Republican nominee all three times. . Arizona goes medium blue this time.  

 

all seven times D deep red
Clinton twice, Dubya once, Obama twice, H. Clinton red
Clinton twice, Dubya twice, Obama twice, H. Clinton pink
Clinton once, Dubya twice, Obama twice, H. Clinton light blue
Clinton once, Dubya twice, Obama never, Trump blue
Republican nominees all seven times, deep blue
Logged
Cory Booker
olawakandi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,442
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: January 27, 2019, 06:54:36 am »

PA since 2000 is becoming the new bellwether instead of Ohio, due to its Democratic trend along with black vote in Va. Gephardt could of helped Kerry in IA, NM and OH, in 2004.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,514
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: June 05, 2019, 08:38:39 am »

PA since 2000 is becoming the new bellwether instead of Ohio, due to its Democratic trend along with black vote in Va. Gephardt could of helped Kerry in IA, NM and OH, in 2004.

Democrats did not realize what serious flaws Kerry had as a candidate. Republicans did.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,514
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: October 06, 2019, 10:08:33 am »

The Eisenhower - Obama analogy holds up even if we extend our analysis to young voters and minority groups--provided we focus on 1956 rather than 1952. In 1956 Ike was popular among voters under 30 and Black voters, as was, of course, Obama. In 1952 however, at the height of the Red Scare, most of the pro-Eisenhower (or perhaps anti-Stevenson) vote was older and white, like McCain's in 2008.

Eisenhower steered clear of the anti-union and anti-New Deal rhetoric to which Republican nominees were prone from 1936 to 1948. Paradoxically he might have been able to appeal to the sorts of people who voted for Hoover in 1928. The New Deal did not exist in 1928, there was no Social Security, and labor unions were extremely weak in 1928. Ike knew enough not to threaten the valid achievements of FDR and Truman.

If there is any valid lesson over the ages -- never attack the legitimate successes of the other Party. Ike did not promise to crush unions, repeal Social Security, or dismantle the New Deal. Bill Clinton embraced the foreign policy of George H W Bush as did Obama in practice. Trump may have violated this rule after becoming President, and for that I expect him to lose in 2020.

Obamacare may have saved my life.  
Logged
Wazza
Wazza1901
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,517
Australia


Political Matrix
E: 2.19, S: 1.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: November 01, 2019, 12:01:58 am »

The Eisenhower - Obama analogy holds up even if we extend our analysis to young voters and minority groups--provided we focus on 1956 rather than 1952. In 1956 Ike was popular among voters under 30 and Black voters, as was, of course, Obama. In 1952 however, at the height of the Red Scare, most of the pro-Eisenhower (or perhaps anti-Stevenson) vote was older and white, like McCain's in 2008.

Eisenhower lost the black vote in 1956 by a substantial margin, he didn't even crack 40% despite winning the NPV by 57%. Also, do you have any data showing Eisenhower's relative popularity amongst young voters, or is this just an assumption based off "Youth for Eisenhower" or something of the sort?
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 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