Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 21, 2018, 12:50:11 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Torie)
| | |-+  Most impressive loss?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Poll
Question: Which loss was most impressive?
Clinton losing TX by 3.5%, 1992   -6 (10.2%)
Bush losing CA by 10%, 2004   -11 (18.6%)
Obama losing MT by 2.3%, 2008   -18 (30.5%)
Trump losing ME by 3%, 2016   -5 (8.5%)
Trump losing MN by 1.5%, 2016   -19 (32.2%)
Show Pie Chart
Total Voters: 59

Author Topic: Most impressive loss?  (Read 688 times)
Arbitrage1980
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 482
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 13, 2017, 01:28:58 am »

****
Logged
Redneck Conservative
DTC
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,562


Political Matrix
E: 9.53, S: 10.50

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 13, 2017, 09:10:59 pm »

Why is Minnesota so impressive? It's a 88% white state, has a decent amount of rural areas, and is the most welloff state when you address for cost of living. It's bound to go republican any day now imo.

I went with California in 2004 because Bush got a ton of hispanic voters that no other republican has gotten.
Logged

Endorsements: Patriot Businessman Don Blankenship (WV-Senate)



-0.382
0.109
-0.124
The Govanah Jake
Jake Jewvinivisk
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,337


Political Matrix
E: -3.35, S: -7.65

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 13, 2017, 09:47:49 pm »

Why is Minnesota so impressive? It's a 88% white state, has a decent amount of rural areas, and is the most welloff state when you address for cost of living. It's bound to go republican any day now imo.

I went with California in 2004 because Bush got a ton of hispanic voters that no other republican has gotten.

It's impressive because it hasn't gone Republican since 1972 and it being this close when it hasn't been since the Bush era caught many by surprise. Though I must stress

1. Democrats base in Minnesota is still a higher then average white vote and gave them a majority as recently as 2008. 2012 was divided and I don't know who won in the end. White voters have a long history in the state supporting progressive and populist candidates and as long as the democrat support those things then they will probably have a higher then average white vote.

2. It may be a rural state but the rural areas are more democratic then average. 2016 may not be a good example due to the Trump effect but Obama 2008/12 won dozens of rural county's in the northern Iron range and southern Drift area. Thus it leads such a rural state to consistently vote Democrat since 1972 in combination with its Minneapolis base. 2016 may of shown a dramatic decrease in the democratic margins in these rural county's but 1 election is not a trend. We will have too see where this takes us

3. Well a reason for surprise is that it has been a well off state for a while now and still hasn't voted republican. I do agree that as more business oriented interests enter the state increase its wealth combined with the continued collapse of democrat supporting labor unions and margins in the rural areas that then it will start voting republican but many didn't expect it to be so sudden.

Also I do agree with California. I'm shocked Bush got up to and more then 40% of the Hispanic vote in 2004 and also shocked at how close relatively speaking he made California.   
Logged

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=18844.1250

2020 Democratic Primary - Sherrod Brown, Tulsi Gabbard, Jeff Merkley, Tammy Baldwin, and Bernie Sanders.

What if Henry Wallace remained on the ticket?

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=287468.0
Arbitrage1980
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 482
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 14, 2017, 02:30:41 am »

Why is Minnesota so impressive? It's a 88% white state, has a decent amount of rural areas, and is the most welloff state when you address for cost of living. It's bound to go republican any day now imo.

I went with California in 2004 because Bush got a ton of hispanic voters that no other republican has gotten.

It's impressive because it hasn't gone Republican since 1972 and it being this close when it hasn't been since the Bush era caught many by surprise. Though I must stress

1. Democrats base in Minnesota is still a higher then average white vote and gave them a majority as recently as 2008. 2012 was divided and I don't know who won in the end. White voters have a long history in the state supporting progressive and populist candidates and as long as the democrat support those things then they will probably have a higher then average white vote.

2. It may be a rural state but the rural areas are more democratic then average. 2016 may not be a good example due to the Trump effect but Obama 2008/12 won dozens of rural county's in the northern Iron range and southern Drift area. Thus it leads such a rural state to consistently vote Democrat since 1972 in combination with its Minneapolis base. 2016 may of shown a dramatic decrease in the democratic margins in these rural county's but 1 election is not a trend. We will have too see where this takes us

3. Well a reason for surprise is that it has been a well off state for a while now and still hasn't voted republican. I do agree that as more business oriented interests enter the state increase its wealth combined with the continued collapse of democrat supporting labor unions and margins in the rural areas that then it will start voting republican but many didn't expect it to be so sudden.

Also I do agree with California. I'm shocked Bush got up to and more then 40% of the Hispanic vote in 2004 and also shocked at how close relatively speaking he made California.  

Bush won Orange County by 20.7% in 2004, which is shocking looking back in retrospect. Hillary won it by 8.6%, the first Democrat to win it since FDR 1936. Trump did worse in CA than even McGovern and Mondale; the extent of his collapse in the nation's largest state cannot be understated.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2017, 03:40:50 am by Arbitrage1980 »Logged
L.D. Smith, Aggie! It's Real Expenses Again
MormDem
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,775
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 14, 2017, 01:09:10 pm »

Why is Minnesota so impressive? It's a 88% white state, has a decent amount of rural areas, and is the most welloff state when you address for cost of living. It's bound to go republican any day now imo.

I went with California in 2004 because Bush got a ton of hispanic voters that no other republican has gotten.

It's impressive because it hasn't gone Republican since 1972 and it being this close when it hasn't been since the Bush era caught many by surprise. Though I must stress

1. Democrats base in Minnesota is still a higher then average white vote and gave them a majority as recently as 2008. 2012 was divided and I don't know who won in the end. White voters have a long history in the state supporting progressive and populist candidates and as long as the democrat support those things then they will probably have a higher then average white vote.

2. It may be a rural state but the rural areas are more democratic then average. 2016 may not be a good example due to the Trump effect but Obama 2008/12 won dozens of rural county's in the northern Iron range and southern Drift area. Thus it leads such a rural state to consistently vote Democrat since 1972 in combination with its Minneapolis base. 2016 may of shown a dramatic decrease in the democratic margins in these rural county's but 1 election is not a trend. We will have too see where this takes us

3. Well a reason for surprise is that it has been a well off state for a while now and still hasn't voted republican. I do agree that as more business oriented interests enter the state increase its wealth combined with the continued collapse of democrat supporting labor unions and margins in the rural areas that then it will start voting republican but many didn't expect it to be so sudden.

Also I do agree with California. I'm shocked Bush got up to and more then 40% of the Hispanic vote in 2004 and also shocked at how close relatively speaking he made California.   

Bush won Orange County by 20.7% in 2004, which is shocking looking back in retrospect. Hillary won it by 8.6%, the first Democrat to win it since FDR 1936. Trump did worse in CA than even McGovern and Mondale; the extent of his collapse in the nation's largest state cannot be understated.


Mondale did better than Carter's re-election attempts in the state, and McGovern did better than either of them.

Trying to use of them as an example against Trump is a bad example...him doing worse than Carter in 1980...now THAT is a bit more valid.
Logged

dw93
DWL
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,177
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 15, 2017, 12:55:32 pm »

 Most Impressive to Least:

1. Trump losing MN by 1.5%, 2016

2. Trump losing ME by 3%, 2016

3. Bush losing CA by 10%, 2004

4. Obama losing MT by 2.3%, 2008

5. Clinton losing TX by 3.5%, 1992

Reasons:

1. Maine hasn't voted Republican since 1988 and the Democrats have won it pretty decisively from 1992-2012. Honestly, I was more shocked that Trump won Maine's 2nd Congressional District than I was about him winning Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

2. Minnesota hasn't voted for a Republican since the Nixon landslide of '72 and it wasn't close in 2008 or 2012, and IRC, it wasn't close from 1988-1996 either.  The only reason this isn't number one is because Dubya made it close in 2000 and 2004.

3. This is surprising because from 1992-2000, California was trending to the Democrats big time and then all of the sudden, Bush somewhat reverses that trend and only loses it by 10 points and does so in part by winning a 40% of the Latino vote nationally, which in and of it self was shocking because it seemed like he didn't try as hard to win that vote in 2004 as he did in 2000, and in 2000 he only won around 35%.

4. Montana had a elected a Democrats in state wide races numerous times over the course of the last decade (2 two term Democratic Governors since 2004, a Senator, etc...) so it's not all that surprising that  Montana was that close in 2008 of all years.

5. This is the least surprising. Texas still leaned Democratic at the state and local level at that time and up to that point, Republicans only won Texas in Landslide years (Humphrey won in in 68, Carter won it in 76), and Perot also took a large chunk of the vote. Had Perot not been in the race, Clinton could've conceivably won Texas and very well could've in 96 as well.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2017, 01:13:40 pm by dw93 »Logged

My Immortal
tara gilesbie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,066
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 15, 2017, 03:37:39 pm »

Had Perot not been in the race, Clinton could've conceivably won Texas and very well could've in 96 as well.

No, Perot was the only thing that keep the state close in '92.
Logged
VPH
vivaportugalhabs
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,833
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.58, S: 0.87

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: November 15, 2017, 04:10:07 pm »

Obama in Montana. Seemingly came out of nowhere, swung every county HARD.
Logged

KS-GOV: Josh Svaty
WI-GOV: Tony Evers
IL-12: Brendan Kelly
KS-02: Paul Davis
KS-03: Sharice Davids
KY-06: Amy McGrath
NC-09: Dan McReady
NJ-02: Jeff Van Drew
PA-09: Denny Wolff
TX-23: Gina Ortiz Jones
Arbitrage1980
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 482
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: November 15, 2017, 06:08:39 pm »

Most Impressive to Least:

1. Trump losing MN by 1.5%, 2016

2. Trump losing ME by 3%, 2016

3. Bush losing CA by 10%, 2004

4. Obama losing MT by 2.3%, 2008

5. Clinton losing TX by 3.5%, 1992

Reasons:

1. Maine hasn't voted Republican since 1988 and the Democrats have won it pretty decisively from 1992-2012. Honestly, I was more shocked that Trump won Maine's 2nd Congressional District than I was about him winning Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

2. Minnesota hasn't voted for a Republican since the Nixon landslide of '72 and it wasn't close in 2008 or 2012, and IRC, it wasn't close from 1988-1996 either.  The only reason this isn't number one is because Dubya made it close in 2000 and 2004.

3. This is surprising because from 1992-2000, California was trending to the Democrats big time and then all of the sudden, Bush somewhat reverses that trend and only loses it by 10 points and does so in part by winning a 40% of the Latino vote nationally, which in and of it self was shocking because it seemed like he didn't try as hard to win that vote in 2004 as he did in 2000, and in 2000 he only won around 35%.

4. Montana had a elected a Democrats in state wide races numerous times over the course of the last decade (2 two term Democratic Governors since 2004, a Senator, etc...) so it's not all that surprising that  Montana was that close in 2008 of all years.

5. This is the least surprising. Texas still leaned Democratic at the state and local level at that time and up to that point, Republicans only won Texas in Landslide years (Humphrey won in in 68, Carter won it in 76), and Perot also took a large chunk of the vote. Had Perot not been in the race, Clinton could've conceivably won Texas and very well could've in 96 as well.

I agree with a lot of this but with few caveats.

1. Bush lost CA in 2000 by 11.6%, so his 10% loss in 2004 was pretty much in line, and less of an improvement than his overall national popular vote improvement of 3%.

2. Bush won MT by 20.5% in 2004, so the Obama loss in 2008 was a pretty big swing. Granted, MT has a strong anti-war libertarian streak, and Ron Paul was on the ballot that year as a write-in candidate but impressive nonetheless.

3. Trump was consistently leading in ME02, but his 10.3% margin was surprising. Bush kept Maine overall within single digits in 2000 and 2004, but Obama crushed it there. I thought Trump would lose the state overall by 6-8 points.
Logged
L.D. Smith, Aggie! It's Real Expenses Again
MormDem
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,775
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: November 15, 2017, 07:09:48 pm »

Impressively Bad Losses

1. Bush Sr's performance in Iowa, 1988

2. Trump's performance in California, 2016

3. Bush Jr's performance in New Jersey, 2000

4. Clinton's performance in Utah, 1992

5. Obama's performance in Alaska, 2008



Impressively Close Losses

1. Obama's performance in Montana, 2008

2. Trump's performance in Rhode Island, 2016

3. Bush Jr's performance in Oregon, 2000

4. Obama's performance in Georgia, 2008

5. Clinton's performance in South Dakota, 1992
Logged

TDAS04
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,059
Nepal


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: November 15, 2017, 08:22:29 pm »

Voted Clinton's close loss in Texas, considering how Republican it became afterward, and that he was running against two Texans.

I think Gore's loss in Kentucky was impressively bad.
Logged

Economic:  -2.71
Social:  -5.74
Pennsylvania Deplorable
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 475


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: November 15, 2017, 08:54:30 pm »

I picked Obama in MT. MN and ME were naturally going to trend R. Trump only accelerated it.

Clinton came close in Texas but it's worth keeping in mind that it had very low turnout relative to the country as whole, suggesting Cruz supporters didn't all show up in November. Additionally, pro-Clinton groups spent money there. Trump focused on a narrower array of states, trusting that red states would go his way without spending or special attention from him.

Bush in California was certainly a good showing for a republican, but it was still a 10 point loss in a state that had been competitive not that long ago.
Incidentally, the much referenced "Bush won 44% of Hispanics" figure has been discredited repeatedly. Basic intuition, private polling, and county level data all contradict it badly. Articles debunking it from the left and right: https://www.alternet.org/story/20606/44_percent_of_hispanics_voted_for_bush
http://www.vdare.com/articles/bush-didnt-win-44-of-hispanic-vote-the-smoking-exit-poll
Logged

I endorse: President Donald Trump
Mo Brooks (R-AL)
Paul Gosar (R-AZ)
Tom Cotton (R-AR)
Duncan Hunter (R-CA)
David Perdue (R-GA)
Steve King (R-IA)
Lou Barletta (R-PA)
Dave Brat (R-VA)
Lamar Smith (R-TX)
and literally anyone who runs against John McCain
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines