Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 18, 2019, 07:55:59 pm
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Atlas Forum
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  International Elections (Moderators: Gustaf, Hash, Keyboard Jacobinism)
  2018 ROC local elections Nov 24
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 Print
Author Topic: 2018 ROC local elections Nov 24  (Read 16242 times)
jaichind
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,761
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #200 on: November 27, 2018, 08:25:40 am »
« edited: March 09, 2019, 09:20:52 am by jaichind »

Here is an example of what I talked about with TV channels just making up vote count.  A blog that complained about this took snapshots of what the vote count looks like at various TV channels at 7pm.  The problematic one in question is Deep Green SET which had for Tainan City (臺南市) (PVI Green +11)  DPP ~332K to KMT 256K
Img


But everyone else had a much narrower lead at DPP ~207K KMT ~173K at 7pm
Img

Img

Img

Img

Img

Img


This is more about the decision desk at SET "feels" that the DPP should have a much bigger lead then what the KMT cadre rand various stringers are reporting.  In the end SET ended up being wrong and the real result was a much closer race at DPP ~367K KMT ~313K

Also note for some other races SET had higher vote counts as well.  They are most likely made up as well but in terms of vote percentages they ended not be that far off.  The key point is that all TV channels just make up numbers.  It is just SET this election night seems the most aggressive in order to make sure that more eyeballs are tuned in.
Logged
Representative Carpetbagger
CELTICEMPIRE
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,087


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #201 on: November 27, 2018, 08:29:51 am »

Does this mean the Chiang statues are coming back?
Logged
jaichind
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,761
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #202 on: November 27, 2018, 10:08:47 am »

A look at the 2 other critical referendum results by city/count are

                                                          Pro-nuclear power    Anti-gay marriage
Total                                                         59.49%                  72.48%
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lienchiang County(連江縣) (PVI Blue +41)    69.36%                  77.66%
Kinmen County(金門縣) (PVI Blue +41)        66.92%                   78.61%
Hualian County(花蓮縣) (PVI Blue +20)        61.45%                   78.19%
Taidong County(臺東縣)  (PVI Blue +18)       60.06%                   78.13%
Hsinchu County (新竹縣) (PVI Blue +14)       59.92%                   74.15%
Maioli County (苗栗縣) (PVI Blue +11)          59.99%                   76.79%
Keelong City (基隆市) (PVI Blue +8)             59.51%                   72.22%
Taipei City (臺北市) (PVI Blue +6)                58.55%                   65.59%
Taoyuan City (桃園市) (PVI Blue +5)             60.58%                  72.77%
Hsinchu City(新竹市) (PVI Blue +5)               59.90%                  69.96%
Penghu County(澎湖縣) (PVI Blue +4)           63.22%                  76.66%
Nanto County(南投縣) (PVI Blue +3)             61.97%                  77.74%
New Taipei City (新北市)  (PVI Blue +2)        59.12%                   70.02%
Taichung City(臺中市)  (PVI Blue +0)            60.28%                   73.24%
Changhua County(彰化縣) (PVI Green +1)     59.54%                  76.19%
Jiayi City(嘉義市) (PVI Green +3)                  58.48%                  77.35%
Yilan County(宜蘭縣)  (PVI Green +6)            59.18%                  73.18%
Kaoshiung City (高雄市) (PVI Green +7)         59.62%                  73.86%
Yunlin County(雲林縣) (PVI Green +8)           59.94%                   76.17%
Pingdong County(屏東縣) (Green +8)            58.55%                   76.02%
Jaiyi County(嘉義縣) (PVI Green +10)            58.48%                  77.35%
Tainan City (臺南市) (PVI Green +11)            57.61%                  72.80%

There is almost no correlation between Blue/Green PVI and the pro-nuclear power vote even though DPP is clearly against nuclear power and the KMT is clearly open to backing nuclear power.  In super pro-DPP cities like Tainan City (臺南市) (PVI Green +11) there is lesser support for nuclear power, sane with some super Blue counties for nuclear power.

The anti-gay marriage vote clearly is correlated with level of urbanization.  Correlation with Blue/Green PVI also seem non-existent.  Although some of the places the KMT under-performed did have lower rates of support for the anti-gay marriage position like  Taipei City (臺北市) (PVI Blue +6) and Hsinchu City(新竹市) (PVI Blue +5)  despite an anti-KMT lean.  Likewise some of the places the KMT over-performed have high rates of anti-gay marriage support like Changhua County(彰化縣) (PVI Green +1)  and Yilan County(宜蘭縣)  (PVI Green +6) despite an anti-KMT lean.
Logged
jaichind
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,761
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #203 on: November 27, 2018, 05:54:27 pm »

Does this mean the Chiang statues are coming back?

They were really not ever gone. Sure, every time the DPP takes over there are a few hundred statutes removed but there are over 1000+ more around in various places. Also the Chiang Kai-Shek memorial is still there despite various plans by DPP to come up with an excuse to remove it.  When it comes down to it the Chiang Kai-Shek memorial due to tourist value, especially for Mainland China tourists.  The way Chiang is viewed on mainland China today, even for dire-hard CCP supporters, is getting much more positive than 15 years ago and for sure a lot more positive than 30 years ago.    Also for people on the Mainland who are always being pounded by pro-CCP propaganda looking at anti-CCP propaganda but not treasonous ones (so pro-Taiwan Independence or HK independence stuff is out) would be a relief.  Pro-Chiang ones fits to bill.

So seeing signs the below from the 1950s-1980s period of KMT propaganda  (Unite China Under Tree Peoples Principles) actually offers psychological relieve and good curiosity for Mainland China tourists
Img
Logged
Hydera
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,395


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #204 on: November 27, 2018, 06:39:05 pm »

A look at the 2 other critical referendum results by city/count are

                                                          Pro-nuclear power    Anti-gay marriage
Total                                                         59.49%                  72.48%
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lienchiang County(連江縣) (PVI Blue +41)    69.36%                  77.66%
Kinmen County(金門縣) (PVI Blue +41)        66.92%                   78.61%
Hualian County(花蓮縣) (PVI Blue +20)        61.45%                   78.19%
Taidong County(臺東縣)  (PVI Blue +18)       60.06%                   78.13%
Hsinchu County (新竹縣) (PVI Blue +14)       59.92%                   74.15%
Maioli County (苗栗縣) (PVI Blue +11)          59.99%                   76.79%
Keelong City (基隆市) (PVI Blue +8)             59.51%                   72.22%
Taipei City (臺北市) (PVI Blue +6)                58.55%                   65.59%
Taoyuan City (桃園市) (PVI Blue +5)             60.58%                  72.77%
Hsinchu City(新竹市) (PVI Blue +5)               59.90%                  69.96%
Penghu County(澎湖縣) (PVI Blue +4)           63.22%                  76.66%
Nanto County(南投縣) (PVI Blue +3)             61.97%                  77.74%
New Taipei City (新北市)  (PVI Blue +2)        59.12%                   70.02%
Taichung City(臺中市)  (PVI Blue +0)            60.28%                   73.24%
Changhua County(彰化縣) (PVI Green +1)     59.54%                  76.19%
Jiayi City(嘉義市) (PVI Green +3)                  58.48%                  77.35%
Yilan County(宜蘭縣)  (PVI Green +6)            59.18%                  73.18%
Kaoshiung City (高雄市) (PVI Green +7)         59.62%                  73.86%
Yunlin County(雲林縣) (PVI Green +8)           59.94%                   76.17%
Pingdong County(屏東縣) (Green +8)            58.55%                   76.02%
Jaiyi County(嘉義縣) (PVI Green +10)            58.48%                  77.35%
Tainan City (臺南市) (PVI Green +11)            57.61%                  72.80%

There is almost no correlation between Blue/Green PVI and the pro-nuclear power vote even though DPP is clearly against nuclear power and the KMT is clearly open to backing nuclear power.  In super pro-DPP cities like Tainan City (臺南市) (PVI Green +11) there is lesser support for nuclear power, sane with some super Blue counties for nuclear power.

The anti-gay marriage vote clearly is correlated with level of urbanization.  Correlation with Blue/Green PVI also seem non-existent.  Although some of the places the KMT under-performed did have lower rates of support for the anti-gay marriage position like  Taipei City (臺北市) (PVI Blue +6) and Hsinchu City(新竹市) (PVI Blue +5)  despite an anti-KMT lean.  Likewise some of the places the KMT over-performed have high rates of anti-gay marriage support like Changhua County(彰化縣) (PVI Green +1)  and Yilan County(宜蘭縣)  (PVI Green +6) despite an anti-KMT lean.


What about comparing the vote against same sex marriage and the vote for competing in the Tokyo Olympics as Taiwan not Chinese taipei.
Logged
jaichind
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,761
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #205 on: November 27, 2018, 08:06:56 pm »

From a city/county assembly point of view.  The KMT and allies flipped Kaoshiung City (高雄市) (PVI Green +7),  moved to total control of New Taipei City (新北市)  (PVI Blue +2) vs power sharing with DPP,  closed the gap in DPP controlled Tainan City (臺南市) (PVI Green +11) and Jaiyi County(嘉義縣) (PVI Green +10), have a shot at ending power sharing with DPP in Pingdong County(屏東縣) (Green +8) and Yilan County(宜蘭縣)  (PVI Green +6)  to KMT control and most likely flipped Hsinchu City(新竹市) (PVI Blue +5) to KMT control from a DPP alliance with a pro-DPP ex-KMT local faction bloc.

If the KMT plays it alliance politics well gets various pro-KMT independents to back the KMT the DPP and allies will be reduced to only controlling  Tainan City (臺南市) (PVI Green +11) and Jaiyi County(嘉義縣) with the KMT and allies controlling all other city/county assemblies.  That would mostly restore a pre-2009 world in terms of city/county assembly control.
Logged
jaichind
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,761
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #206 on: November 27, 2018, 10:20:03 pm »

City/County assembly vote share based on Blue and Green parties.

               Blues       Greens
2018       42.98%    35.12%
2014       39.94%    39.98%
2009-10  42.72%    32.82%
2005-6    45.89%    26.73%
2001-2    45.24%    22.53%

The independent candidates tends to lean Blue.  I have to do a candidate by candidate analysis of independents  to calculate the true Blue Green balance which I will do next couple of weeks.  Overall Greens historically have been very weak at the City.County assembly elections and over the last couple of decades have been having their vote share slowing converging to their national vote share.  2018 is a clear reversal for Greens but the Green vote share is still greater than 2009-10 cycle which is a more neutral year.  So despite the clear Pan-Green setback the convergence continues.
Logged
jaichind
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,761
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #207 on: November 28, 2018, 01:47:06 am »

What about comparing the vote against same sex marriage and the vote for competing in the Tokyo Olympics as Taiwan not Chinese taipei.

I guess I can combine my 2 charts

                                                          Pro-nuclear power    Anti-gay marriage      Taiwan instead of
                                                                                                                         Chinese Taipei
Total                                                         59.49%                  72.48%                   45.20%
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lienchiang County(連江縣) (PVI Blue +41)    69.36%                  77.66%                    21.13%
Kinmen County(金門縣) (PVI Blue +41)        66.92%                   78.61%                   23.15%
Hualian County(花蓮縣) (PVI Blue +20)        61.45%                   78.19%                   35.81%
Taidong County(臺東縣)  (PVI Blue +18)       60.06%                   78.13%                   37.84%
Hsinchu County (新竹縣) (PVI Blue +14)       59.92%                   74.15%                   37.00%
Maioli County (苗栗縣) (PVI Blue +11)          59.99%                   76.79%                   38.84%
Keelong City (基隆市) (PVI Blue +8)             59.51%                   72.22%                   43.20%
Taipei City (臺北市) (PVI Blue +6)                58.55%                   65.59%                   43.94%
Taoyuan City (桃園市) (PVI Blue +5)             60.58%                  72.77%                   41.51%
Hsinchu City(新竹市) (PVI Blue +5)               59.90%                  69.96%                   41.88%
Penghu County(澎湖縣) (PVI Blue +4)           63.22%                  76.66%                    41.58%
Nanto County(南投縣) (PVI Blue +3)             61.97%                  77.74%                    41.54%
New Taipei City (新北市)  (PVI Blue +2)        59.12%                   70.02%                   45.03%
Taichung City(臺中市)  (PVI Blue +0)            60.28%                   73.24%                   43.28%
Changhua County(彰化縣) (PVI Green +1)     59.54%                  76.19%                   45.09%
Jiayi City(嘉義市) (PVI Green +3)                  58.48%                  77.35%                   49.25%
Yilan County(宜蘭縣)  (PVI Green +6)            59.18%                  73.18%                   50.41%
Kaoshiung City (高雄市) (PVI Green +7)         59.62%                  73.86%                   48.62%
Yunlin County(雲林縣) (PVI Green +8)           59.94%                   76.17%                   48.09%
Pingdong County(屏東縣) (Green +8)            58.55%                   76.02%                   50.46%
Jaiyi County(嘉義縣) (PVI Green +10)            58.48%                  77.35%                   51.59%
Tainan City (臺南市) (PVI Green +11)            57.61%                  72.80%                   52.73%

I think if issues like Gay marriage plays a greater salience relative to the unification-independence issue then Central Taiwan Province will trend KMT while Northern Taiwan Province will trend to DPP.  If  so then this is  back to the future as it will be the return to the 1980s.
Logged
jaichind
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,761
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #208 on: November 28, 2018, 01:53:23 am »

It seems new KMT Kaoshiung mayor Han will soon lead a delegation of the 15 KMT mayors/county magistrates to visit PRC.  The plans seems to be for the 15 KMT mayors/county magistrates to announce that they back the 1992 Consensus (There is only One China with both sides agreeing to disagree on which of the Chinas (ROC or PRC) is this that One China).  The basic idea is that the PRC drastically pushed down Mainland Chinese tourism after the Tsai regime came to power.  Now that the KMT rule a large part of the ROC at the local level the PRC in return might support buying more products from these 15 cities/counties and design a vacation package for Mainland Chinese tourists that only visit these 15 cities/counties.  If will be seen then if Ko tries to jump on board or have Taipei City lose out on these economic deals.  If this takes place then this another victory for the PRC economic warfare on DPP.
Logged
jaichind
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,761
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #209 on: November 28, 2018, 02:35:12 am »

DPP ex-Prez Chen told a bunch of DPP Kaoshiung City (高雄市) legislators that 2018 will be a pretty bad year for the DPP. 

He predicted that the DPP will lose  Jiayi City(嘉義市) (I have it has lean KMT), Yilan County(宜蘭縣) (I have it as lean KMT),  Penghu County(澎湖縣)(I have it has lean DPP) and Changhua County(彰化縣)(I have it as tossup.)  He also predicted that if Tsai does not turn things around soon DPP will also most likely lose Taichung City(臺中市) (I have it as lean to solid DPP), Yunlin County(雲林縣) (I have it as lean DPP), and Hsinchu City(新竹市)(I have it as lean DPP).  He also said that DPP will still win kaoshiung City (高雄市) but with a much smaller margin (this is obvious since 2014 was a popular DPP incumbant running for re-election in a DPP wave year and 2018 is an open seat in a bad to possibly really bad DPP year.)   He also indicated that in the Kaoshiung City (高雄市) city council the DPP will take a bunch of losses and it is even money that the KMT and allies will recapture majority in the city council from DPP and allies.

I guess Chen is much more negative on DPP changes in Taichung City(臺中市) then I am.  On the flip side he views Taoyuan City (桃園市) as fairly safe for DPP where as I see a chance for KMT.  I guess I focus more on PVI lean and he focuses more on the personal popularity of the DPP incumbent.  I also guess he views the DPP civil war in Jaiyi County(嘉義縣) as a tempest in a teapot and will blow over and no risk of the KMT making a comeback taking advantage of a possible DPP split.  The rest he and I seem to agree where the DPP will take losses and where they are vulnerable for losses.   



Ex DPP Prez Chen and now convicted for corruption but out on parole for health reasons saw thia coming almost a year ago.
Logged
jaichind
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,761
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #210 on: November 28, 2018, 06:16:58 pm »
« Edited: November 28, 2018, 06:20:53 pm by jaichind »

Some results maps from mayor/county magistrates with large swings/flips

Taichung City(臺中市)  (PVI Blue +0)
KMT    56.57% (+13.63%)
DPP     42.35% (-14.71%)

2018 map
Img


2014 map
Img



Kaoshiung City (高雄市) (PVI Green +7)
KMT      53.87% (+22.98%) !!
DPP       44.80% (-23.29%) !!

2018 map
Img


2014 map
Img



Changhua County(彰化縣) (PVI Green +1)  
KMT         53.18% (+13.60%)
DPP         39.87%  (-13.84%)
TSU rebel   4.88%   (-0.35%)

2018 map
Img


2014 map
Img



Yilan County(宜蘭縣)  (PVI Green +6)
KMT             49.48% (+13.43%)
DPP              38.23% (-25.72%) !!
KMT rebel     10.95%


Yunlin County(雲林縣) (PVI Green +8)
KMT          53.83% (+10.81%)
DPP          41.72% (-15.26%)
DPP rebel   2.88%


New Taipei City (新北市)  (PVI Blue +2)
KMT       57.15% (+7.09%)
DPP        42.85% (-5.93%

2018 map
Img


2014 map
Img



Taipei City (臺北市) (PVI Blue +6)  
Ko        41.05% (-16.11%)
KMT     40.82%  (+0.00%)
DPP      17.29%

2018 map
Img


2014 map
Img



Taoyuan City (桃園市) (PVI Blue +5)
DPP           53.46% (+2.46%)
KMT          39.42%  (-8.55%)
KMT rebel   4.99%

2018 map
Img


2014 map
Img



Tainan City (臺南市) (PVI Green +11)
DPP                   38.02% (-34.88%) !!!
KMT                   32.37%  (+5.27%)
Pro-Green Ind.    12.12%
Pro-Blue Ind.        8.71%
TSU rebel             4.67%
DPP rebel             4.11%

2018 map
Img


2014 map
Img

 

Jiayi City(嘉義市) (PVI Green +3)
KMT             41.18% (-4.32%)
DPP             39.56% (-11.85%)
KMT rebel    17.98%


Taidong County(臺東縣)  (PVI Blue +18)
KMT             59.05% (+4.46%)
DPP              37.04% (-8.55%)
KMT rebel       2.55%
Logged
jaichind
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,761
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #211 on: November 29, 2018, 11:33:22 am »

The pro-Nuclear power vote had some interesting results in certain key places.  In the 4 townships where the 4 nuclear power plans are located the Pro-nuclear power vote for nuclear power were 58.1%, 56.7%, 57.0%, and 49.6%.  And the vote in the one township where the nuclear wasted is deposited the vote for nuclear power 43.7%.   These are amazing levels of support for the population most at risk from any safety problems.

What took place was the DPP over promised on energy policy.  The DPP claimed that ROC can get rid of nuclear power by 2025 without prices increases, with power shortages, and without more pollution by pushing up green energy  It is clear that this could not take place and after some power shortages the DPP regime has racketed up coal power plants which increased pollution by quite a bit.  I think on energy policy the population had enough and now wants nuclear power at least on the medium basis until a realistic plan can be executed to have enough green energy at reasonable cost.
Logged
Hydera
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,395


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #212 on: November 29, 2018, 01:20:53 pm »

Looking back at previous elections, in Kaohsiung the combined Pan-Blue vote in Kaohsiung including both the county and the city was about in the 700,000s range in 2004-2012.  And even in the 2000 Taiwan election while a lot of Soong voters later became Soft or hard Pan-Green voters the combined Pan-Blue vote was 847,000 just 45,000 short of his vote total, so while it was a uphill battle for Han Kuo yu it wasnt an impossible task for him to win if he could turn out those people who previously voted for Soong in 2000.
Logged
Representative Carpetbagger
CELTICEMPIRE
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,087


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #213 on: November 29, 2018, 08:14:58 pm »

Does this mean the Chiang statues are coming back?

They were really not ever gone. Sure, every time the DPP takes over there are a few hundred statutes removed but there are over 1000+ more around in various places. Also the Chiang Kai-Shek memorial is still there despite various plans by DPP to come up with an excuse to remove it.  When it comes down to it the Chiang Kai-Shek memorial due to tourist value, especially for Mainland China tourists.  The way Chiang is viewed on mainland China today, even for dire-hard CCP supporters, is getting much more positive than 15 years ago and for sure a lot more positive than 30 years ago.    Also for people on the Mainland who are always being pounded by pro-CCP propaganda looking at anti-CCP propaganda but not treasonous ones (so pro-Taiwan Independence or HK independence stuff is out) would be a relief.  Pro-Chiang ones fits to bill.

So seeing signs the below from the 1950s-1980s period of KMT propaganda  (Unite China Under Tree Peoples Principles) actually offers psychological relieve and good curiosity for Mainland China tourists

I'm planning on visiting Taiwan next year (I live in Dongbei), so I'll have to check it out!
Logged
jaichind
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,761
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #214 on: November 30, 2018, 01:20:39 am »

Looking back at previous elections, in Kaohsiung the combined Pan-Blue vote in Kaohsiung including both the county and the city was about in the 700,000s range in 2004-2012.  And even in the 2000 Taiwan election while a lot of Soong voters later became Soft or hard Pan-Green voters the combined Pan-Blue vote was 847,000 just 45,000 short of his vote total, so while it was a uphill battle for Han Kuo yu it wasnt an impossible task for him to win if he could turn out those people who previously voted for Soong in 2000.

Basically concur.  Kaoshiung was always within reach of the KMT as long as it was a good KMT year in the pre-2014 world. The unprecedented nature  of the KMT defeats in 2014-2016 obscured the fact that the KMT is starting at a very lose base of comparison relative to 2014.  Of course that the KMT can win in Kaoshing shows that the 2014-2016 realignment is mostly ephemeral.  In 2000 the Pan-Green vote was 46.8% (CHen + Shu) while this election the Blue-Green balance is 55.2/44.8 in Kaoshiung.  This means that DPP did worse in 2018 than in 2000 even though in 2000 the Pan-Green vote nationally was  40%.  You have go back to the 1980s and 1990s for KMT performance in Greater Kaoshiung to be as good as what we saw in Han's election.  Even Ma's 2008 landslide victory saw Ma's vote share at around 50% in Greater Kaoshiung.  This sort of plays into my narrative of this election being the year of the return of Central and Southern local KMT faction coming back after moving away from the national KMT under the "Party system of 2000."
Logged
jaichind
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,761
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #215 on: November 30, 2018, 03:33:46 pm »

First post election poll by pro-Green (but also pro-Ko) Formasa

DPP Prez Tsai Approval/Disapproval 20.9(-4.6)/67.9(+0.6)
DPP Prez Tsai Trust/Distrust 24.7(-2.0)/58.9(+0.1)
DPP PM Lai Approval/Disapproval 30.4(-7.9)/53.0(+1.0)

Pan-Blue vs Pan-Green balance most pro-Pan Blue since early 2012
Img


DPP vs KMT vs CCP approval index most pro-KMT since late 2008
Img


Trust/distrust of key political figures
DPP Prez Tsai  24.7/58.9
DPP PM Lai 41.8/44.8
Taipei mayor Ko 63.0/22.0
KMT Outgoing New Taipei City mayor Chu 46.4/29.8
KMT incoming Kaoshiung mayor Han 52.1/26.6

Seems Tsai has to go for something like a Tsai/Lai ticket with de facto alliance and support from Ko to have a chance to defeat likely KMT candidate Chu in a rematch of 2016.
Logged
jaichind
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,761
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #216 on: November 30, 2018, 04:12:06 pm »

Just like Ko was the hero that led the DPP landslide of the 2014 local elections, KMT's Han is the hero that produced a larger than expected KMT victory.  How Han became the KMT candidate of Kaoshiung has to be incredible story of a DPP self-goal.

Han was a KMT MP in Taipei city in the 1990s that appealed to the Right nationalist wing of the KMT base  He even had several physical altercation with fellow DPP MP Chen Shui-Bien who later became DPP mayor of Taipei and then ROC Prez.  His wife is from rural Yunlin County where she was a member of the KMT county assembly.  By the early 2000s Han's political career seems to be over as his brash personality had made him enough enemies in the KMT Taipei establishment.  After 2001 he left politics and settled in Yunln County with his wife who also retired from politics and started a bilingual school.  The Yunlin County magistrate was then KMT's Chang(張榮味) (also brother of KMT Yunlin County magistrate elect) who had deep roots in agriculture.  Chang became good friends with Han due to Han's past life as a politician. 

When Han's bilingual school was not doing that well, Chang helped Han get a job as a CEO the fairly small Taipei Agriculture Wholesaler Corp.  Taipei Agriculture Wholesaler Corp had shareholders including City of Taipei, ROC government, and Agriculture associations (Controlled by Chang and his Chang faction) so given Han's political past Chang was able to convince the various shareholders to give the role to Han.  Han was able to become an expert on how to manage and sell agriculture produce in this role but was really a person with not much influence since no one really cared about his company.   Then in 2014 Ko was elected to become mayor of Taipei City.  Ko took a real liking to Han and expanded Han's company role in the distribution of agriculture products in Taipei City.  Then the DPP came into power in 2016 and soon after that due to the withdraw of PRC purchases of ROC agricultural products the prices of farm products that ROC farmers were able to fetch fell.  The DPP regime decided to blame their old enemy Han and his company for hording  and corruption as the cause of the fall in farm product prices.  After set of political battles the DPP was able to capture various Agriculture associations from Chang and forced Ko to go along with firing Han from his job.  This set of political battles made Han a more well known figure in the media.

Han then decided to run for KMT Chairman in 2017 and despite massive level of support on the internet who took a liking to his tell it like it is personality lost to Wu winning less than 5% of the KMT member vote (as Han's internet supporters are not voting members of the KMT nor any other party.)  When the 2018 local elections came around, Wu could not find anyone to run for the KMT in Kaoshiung since the consensus was the DPP was going to win in a landslide there.  Wu convinced Han to run even though Han wanted to run in Taipei but agreed to take on this role "for the good of the party."  Then the 2018 election turned into an anti-Establishment election which fit Han's style PLUS the election became about agriculture prices in rural Southern Taiwan Province.  Han's background in agriculture wholesaling became an unexpected asset.  In the end he became a bigger internet sensation then his old benefactor Ko and became a key asset for campaigning for KMT across the board except for Taipei (to avoid campaigning against his friend and benefactor Ko).   The result was a large win for Han in Kaohsiung and unexpected KMT victory  in Yunlin.

If the DPP just left Han alone in late 2016 they could have avoided a lot of this and Han would still be a minor CEO of a small farm product wholesaler semi-public company.
Logged
Solidarity Forever
Alfred F. Jones
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,806
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #217 on: December 02, 2018, 04:55:13 pm »

Referendum result (For Yes to pass it has to win AND cross 25% of voting population)


Cool Let the marriage law be changed to allow for Gay marriage (pushed by LGBT activists): Yes won 32.7% and is defeated.


3) The anti-gay marriage grand coalition was awesome to behold.  It included various Buddhist, Taoist, Chinese traditionalist, Catholic, Presbyterian and Islamic and cross both Blue and Green political coalitions.    It was a massive gang up of everyone vs urban middle class progressives and the progressives got smashed. A great example of how to form a grand coalition.



Rather than say something that might get me kicked off the board, all I can say is that I'll never understand the kind of person that takes that kind of joy in other people's heartbreak. 

Then again, I'm sure in November 2008 plenty of "Yes on 8" types were no doubt congratulating themselves on the "awesomeness" of THEIR grand coalition too...

Especially from a so-called “libertarian”
Logged
jaichind
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,761
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #218 on: December 03, 2018, 11:36:44 am »

Recount on the way for Taipei City (臺北市) (PVI Blue +6) mayor race.  Ko admits that in the last week before the election his internals showed that he was behind and that only a massive GOTV effort saved him from defeat. 

I think based on Ko's narrative and other polling data we can sort of work out how the Taipei City (臺北市) (PVI Blue +6)  mayor race evolved.

In late summer the race most likely looked like
Ko           50
KMT Ding 38 
DPP Yao   11
where Ko was able to capture half the Pan-Green vote and a good chunk of the Pan-Blue vote.

Then given the KMT Han surge in  Kaoshiung City (高雄市) (PVI Green +7) which provoked pro-DPP elements of the Ko campaign to come out against Han.  This drove some Pan-Blue votes away from Ko to make it
Ko           47
KMT Ding 41
DPP Yao   11

Then the DPP, desperate to keep Han from winning, was able to successfully increase the Blue-Green polarization around the Unification-Independence issue which drove Pan-Blue and Pan-Greens voters home to make it
Ko           43
KMT Ding 43
DPP Yao   13 
Which was where most polls had it before the poll blackout (neck-to-neck)

Then after the poll blackout Tsai went on an offensive against Ko to drive more Pan-Green voters away from Ko and toward Yao in an effort to destroy Ko and take him out of the 2020 equation.  Tsai was only partially effective to getting the DPP base to back Yao
Ko           39
KMT Ding 43
DPP Yao   17

In the last couple of days before the election it was clear that Ko was in trouble.  Pro-Green but also pro-Ko commentators were saying that DPP Yao has consolidated the DPP vote and that Ko was going to lose.  It seems that doing so was a ruse to send the signal to Light Blue anti-DPP but also anti-Ding voters that it was safe to vote Ko because DPP Yao is now once again "The DPP candidate" which swung some votes toward Ko from Ding to make it
KO          41
KMT Ding 41
DPP Yao   17

Where the election ended up.
Logged
jaichind
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,761
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #219 on: December 03, 2018, 10:44:52 pm »
« Edited: January 21, 2019, 08:34:46 am by jaichind »

A breakdown of the county/city assembly election results grouped by candidate type

Deep Blue - NP or other radical unifications
Blue - KMT
Light Blue - KMT rebels, other KMT splinters (PFP), pro-KMT local factions parties (NPB), pro-KMT independents, KMT rebels
Light Green - DPP rebels, DPP allies (GP, TP, SDP), pro-DPP independents, DPP rebels, non-Blue pro-KO independents
Green - DPP
Deep Green - TSU, NPP, other radical pro-independence minor parties

With change from 2014

Taipei City (臺北市) (PVI Blue +6)
  
                        Candidates      Winners        Vote share
Deep Blue              10                   2(--)             4.57%(-2.03%)
Blue                       33                 29(+1)         38.57%(+3.42%)
Light Blue               15                  6(+2)         10.62%(+2.54%)
Total pan-Blue         58                37(+3)         57.18%(+3.92%)

Light Green            24                  4(+3)            8.13%(+3.84%)
Green                    27                 19(-8)          29.63%(-9.64%)
Deep Green             8                   3(+2)           4.90%(+1.96%)
Total pan-Green     59                 26(-3)           42.67%(-3.83%)

The DPP vote fell dramatically as vote shifted to pro-Ko candidates in the Light Green and Light Blue camps.  The KMT and Deep Greens also gained ground as part of a disastrous result for DPP.   The pro-Ko candidates spread across Light Blue and Light Green blocs won 13.42% (9.42% from Light Blue and 3.99% from Light Green) and 9 seats (6 from Light Blue and 3 from Light Green).  KMT-NP has a near majority on its own and it is unlikely that the pro-Ko Light Blue winners would back and alliance of pro-Ko bloc with the DPP and NPP.

Mayor race
Ko             41.05%
KMT           40.82%
DPP           17.29%  
KMT rebel    0.44%
KMT rebel    0.40%

KMT's Ding failed to capture the City assembly Deep Blue and Blue vote which if he did he would have won easily.  Ko clearly captured some of the Blue vote.



New Taipei City (新北市)  (PVI Blue +2)

                        Candidates      Winners        Vote share
Deep Blue                3                   0(--)            0.30%(-1.45%)
Blue                       36                 33(+7)        46.44%(+7.49%)
Light Blue               21                  6(--)            8.29%(-2.17%)
Total pan-Blue         60                39(+7)         55.03%(+3.87%)

Light Green            12                  2(+1)           6.15%(+3.02%)
Green                    36                 25(-7)         33.68%(-9.64%)
Deep Green             8                   0(-1)           5.08%(+2.92%)
Total pan-Green     56                  27(-7)         44.91%(-3.70%)

Large swing away from DPP to KMT which flips the city assembly to KMT control as DPP lost ground to both Deep Green and Light Green candidates.  Pan-Blue bloc's  conservative nomination strategy paid off.

Mayor election
KMT     57.15%
DPP     42.85%

The KMT candidate ran ahead of the Pan-Blue bloc and clearly had strong personal appeal against a veteran DPP candidate seen as from the past generation.  



Taoyuan City (桃園市) (PVI Blue +5)

                        Candidates      Winners        Vote share
Deep Blue                0                   0(--)            0.00%(-0.75%)
Blue                       38                 32(+3)         42.69%(+5.17%)
Light Blue               37                 10(+1)         18.69%(-2.09%)
Total pan-Blue         75                42(+4)         61.39%(+2.35%)

Light Green            16                  2(+1)            6.92%(-1.08%)
Green                    34                 18(-2)           30.50%(-0.96%)
Deep Green             2                   1(--)             1.10%(-0.09%)
Total pan-Green     52                 21(-1)           38.52%(-2.13%)

The assembly size was grown from 60 to 63.  The DPP candidate for mayor had good cross-partisan appeal and it was expected that the Pan-Green bloc would make gains in the city assembly elections.  In the end the Pan-Blue camp made small gains in a anti-DPP wave election and the results ended up being a status quo election with the KMT keeping its comfortable majority.

Mayor election
DPP                    53.46%
KMT                   39.42%
KMT rebel            4.99%
Left-Progressive   1.76%
Pan-Blue Ind.       0.37%

The DPP candidate clearly won a good chunk of the city assembly Pan-Blue vote and could have also helped the pan-Green camp in the city assembly election but clearly it was not enough.
Logged
jaichind
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,761
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #220 on: December 04, 2018, 08:05:35 am »
« Edited: January 19, 2019, 06:23:39 pm by jaichind »

Taichung City(臺中市)  (PVI Blue +0)

                        Candidates      Winners        Vote share
Blue                       37                 32(+4)         45.76%(+7.53%)
Light Blue               31                  7(-1)          14.14%(-3.35%)
Total pan-Blue         68                39(+3)         59.90%(+4.18%)

Light Green            15                   1(+1)          4.73%(+1.69%)
Green                    36                 25(-2)          33.05%(-6.86%)
Deep Green             4                    0(--)           2.12%(+0.83%)
Total pan-Green     55                  26(-1)          39.90%(-4.34%)

The number of seats went up from 63 to 65.  Despite a swing away from the Pan-Green camp better vote distribution limited the relative seat losses for the Pan-Green camp.

Mayor
KMT              56.57%
DPP               42.35%
KMT rebel       1.09%

The DPP vote for mayor mostly matched that of the Pan-Green city assembly vote. Historically the local KMT factions that made up a good part of the Light Blue vote often vote DPP at the city and national level especially when the DPP incumbent should be able to use municipal resources to lock in these KMT factional leaders behind him.  This time around they swung behind the KMT candidate giving the KMT candidate a clear win over the DPP incumbent.



Tainan City (臺南市) (PVI Green +11)

                        Candidates      Winners        Vote share
Deep Blue                1                  0                  0.10%(+0.10%)
Blue                       22                16(--)           29.31%(+1.38%)
Light Blue               19                10(+4)         15.06%(+1.61%)
Total pan-Blue         42                26(+4)         44.47%(+3.09%)

Light Green            25                  4(-2)           11.32%(+1.09%)
Green                    37                 25(-3)          39.81%(-6.22%)
Deep Green             7                   2(+1)            4.37%(+2.01%)
Total pan-Green     69                 31(-4)           55.51%(-3.11%)

DPP has been in charge for long enough that a lot of the old local factions has gone over to the Pan-Green camp so the city assembly election results tend to more reflect the true partisan balance.  DPP lost ground to the Pan-Blue camp as well to other Pan-Green forces.  The shift in seats were significant although DPP continues to keep control of the city assembly with a smaller majority as the DPP was hit with a bloc of DPP rebels.

Mayor race
DPP                38.02%
KMT                32.37%
Pro-Green Ind. 12.12%
Pro-Blue Ind.     8.71%
TSU rebel          4.67%
DPP rebel          4.11%

The mayor vote was splintered.  The DPP candidate is fairly moderate while the KMT candidate has local roots but seen as ineffective.  The national swing toward the KMT clearly eroded the DPP vote.  At lot of the voting here are personal.  The Pro-Blue Ind. is actually close personally to the DPP candidate which must have driven some pan-Blue voters away from him while the Pan-Green Ind. is quite hostile to the local DPP administration which must have help it capture some Pan-Blue votes.




Kaoshiung City (高雄市) (PVI Green +7)

                        Candidates      Winners        Vote share
Deep Blue                0                   0                 0.00%(-0.17%)
Blue                       37                 33(+9)         43.96%(+9.48%)
Light Blue               27                  5 (+1)          7.98%(-0.11%)
Total pan-Blue         64                38(+10)        51.93%(+9.19%)

Light Green            16                  0(-4)             3.15%(-1.50%)
Green                    38                 25(-8)          36.80%(-10.55%)
Deep Green           11                   3(+2)           8.06%(+2.93%)
Total pan-Green     65                 28(-10)         48.01%(-9.12%)

The Han wave clearly carried the Pan-Blue camp to a majority on a fairly large swing.  Before 2014 the KMT always had control of the city assembly but a majority of this scale you have to go back to 2006.

Mayor
KMT                53.87%
DPP                44.80%
KMT rebel         0.85%
ex-NP               0.48%

KMT's Han clearly exceeded the Pan-Blue city assembly voting bloc and captured some Pan-Green votes en route to a unexpectedly large victory.
Logged
jaichind
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,761
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #221 on: December 04, 2018, 09:53:41 am »
« Edited: December 18, 2018, 07:54:00 am by jaichind »

Now we move to two Deep Blue counties in Northern Taiwan Province.

Hsinchu County (新竹縣) (PVI Blue +14)

                        Candidates      Winners        Vote share
Deep Blue                3                   2(+1)          4.33%(+2.15%)
Blue                       26                 19(-4)          43.42%(-13.63%)
Light Blue               30                 10(+4)        31.53%(+11.94%)
Total pan-Blue         59                31(+1)         79.28%(+0.46%)

Light Green            12                  2(-2)          10.15%(-2.40%)
Green                      7                  2(--)            8.75%(+0.58%
Deep Green             1                   1(+1)          1.71%(+1.40%)
Total pan-Green     20                   5(-1)          20.61%(-0.41%)

With the 2014-2016 election defeat hurting the KMT brand name and with MKT running a strong campaign in the county magistrate a lot of KMT candidates ran as pro-KMT independents.  The result was a status quo election in the county assembly election.  The 2014 DPP wave did not make its mark in the county assembly election so when the wave went the other way there is also no net change.

County magistrate race

KMT      38.20%   
MKT      32.29%
DPP       27.68%
Ind.        1.83%

All 3 major candidates have KMT backgrounds including the DPP candidate.  A part of the County assembly Pan-Blue vote are pro-Green at the county and national level so it is not surprising and expected that the DPP candidate gets Pan-Blue county assembly votes, especially a DPP candidate that used to be in the KMT (his father was the head of a large KMT faction in the county that have since had a falling out with the national KMT and then allied with the DPP.)



Maioli County (苗栗縣) (PVI Blue +11)

                        Candidates      Winners        Vote share
Deep Blue                2                   0                 0.31%(+0.31%)
Blue                       18                 14(-5)         30.27%(-10.81%)
Light Blue               31                 17(+4)        47.63%(+10.61%)
Total pan-Blue         51                31(-1)          78.21%(+0.11%)

Light Green             6                   1(-1)             4.00%(-3.49%)
Green                    10                  4(--)            14.12%(+0.16%)
Deep Green             2                   2(+2)           3.39%(+3.39%)
Total pan-Green     18                   7(+1)         21.52%(+0.08%)

Mostly a status quo election.  A good part of the KMT candidates ran as independents given the knock on KMT popularity in the 2014-2016 elections but the net result is around the same.

County magistrate race

KMT            57.74%
Ind(DPP)     37.03%
Ind              2.97%
DPP rebel     2.26%

A good part of the county assembly Pan-Blue vote votes DPP at the county and national level so it is not a surprise that the Ind(DPP) exceeded the county assembly Pan-Green vote especially when the DPP backed an independent that can attract Pan-Blue votes knowing how weak it was in the county.
Logged
jaichind
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,761
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #222 on: December 04, 2018, 02:57:49 pm »
« Edited: January 21, 2019, 08:33:47 am by jaichind »

Then we have the three tossup counties in Central Taiwan Province

Changhua County(彰化縣) (PVI Green +1)

                        Candidates      Winners        Vote share
Deep Blue                1                   0                 0.05%(+0.05%)
Blue                       29                 28(+4)        44.67%(+5.25%)
Light Blue               21                 11(--)          21.73%(+0.18%)
Total pan-Blue         51                39(+4)         66.44%(+5.47%)

Light Green              7                  2(--)            4.66%(+0.04%)
Green                    26                 12(-5)          27.51%(-6.46%)
Deep Green             1                   1(+1)          1.24%(+1.02%)
Total pan-Green     34                 15(-4)          33.41%(-5.50%)

Due to the 2014-2016 defeats some KMT candidates ran as pro-KMT independents but the swing toward the KMT was so strong the KMT candidates gained vote share despite running less candidates.  Over-nomination plus a swing against the DPP led to a catastrophic result as the KMT bloc adds to its majority.  

County magistrate race

KMT          53.18%
DPP           39.87%
TSU rebel    4.88% (pro-Ko)
DPP rebel    1.04%
KMT rebel    1.02%
 
The KMT candidate was able to push the DPP incumbent to levels close to the Pan-Green county assembly vote which is easily enough for a clear victory.  The TSU rebel with Ko support must have ate into the Pan-Blue county assembly vote.   In this race the KMT local faction vote which often vote DPP at the county and national level went for the KMT leading to a landslide victory.


Nanto County(南投縣) (PVI Blue +3)

                        Candidates      Winners        Vote share
Deep Blue                1                   0                 0.48%(+0.47%)
Blue                       20                 17(--)           39.67%(-2.77%)
Light Blue               21                 10(+1)         31.47%(+1.82%)
Total pan-Blue         42                27(+1)         71.62%(-0.48%)

Light Green              4                  2(-1)             4.92%(-2.68%)
Green                    13                  8(--)            23.33%(+4.04%)
Deep Green             0                   0                  0.00%(-0.64%)
Total pan-Green      17                10(-1)           28.25%(+0.72%)

Several KMT candidates decided to run as pro-KMT independents due to the impact of the KMT brand from the 2014-2016 anti-KMT wave. The 2014 wave mostly left  Nanto County(南投縣) (PVI Blue +3) untouched at the county assembly election level so the the tide turned against the DPP in 2018 the net impact is nil with the result being a mostly status quo election.

County magistrate race

KMT     66.72%
DPP      33.28%

Part of the county assembly Pan-Blue vote goes DPP at the county and national level so the fact that the DPP ran ahead of the Pan-Green county assembly vote is expected.   The KMT incumbent is fairly popular and did very well in a KMT year.



Penghu County(澎湖縣) (PVI Blue +4)

                        Candidates      Winners        Vote share
Blue                        4                   4(-4)          17.63%(-20.11%)
Light Blue               21                10(+2)         56.63%(+22.64%)
Total pan-Blue         25                14(-2)          74.26%(+2.53%)

Light Green             7                   2(+1)          14.28%(-6.04%)
Green                     4                   3(+1)          10.15%(+2.73%)
Deep Green             1                   0                   0.96% (+0.96%)
Total pan-Green     12                   5(+2)          25.39%(-2.35%)

Due to the anti-KMT wave in 2014-2016 a bunch of KMT members ran as pro-KMT independents.  But due to the large number of KMT rebels in the county magistrate race the county assembly also saw a large number of KMT rebels which pushed up the Pan-Blue county assembly vote share but lost seats to the DPP even as the DPP incumbent was defeated in the county magistrate race.  

County magistrate race

KMT            38.87%
DPP             32.78%
KMT rebel    11.00%   
KMT rebel      8.18%
KMT rebel      5.67%
Ind               2.61%
Ind               0.88%

Part of the Pan-Blue county assembly vote usually goes DPP at the county and national level.  There was a clear swing against the DPP in 2014 and the explosion of KMT rebels mean that the vote would get splintered between the KMT candidate and various KMT rebels and independents.
Logged
jaichind
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,761
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #223 on: December 07, 2018, 11:15:55 pm »
« Edited: December 18, 2018, 07:55:56 am by jaichind »

Then we have some of the Deep Green counties

Yunlin County(雲林縣) (PVI Green +8)

                        Candidates      Winners        Vote share
Blue                       10                  7(--)           18.62%(+3.07%)
Light Blue               26                 17(-2)          35.69%(-3.09%)
Total pan-Blue         36                24(-2)           54.32%(+0.03%)

Light Green            14                  5(+2)          12.88%(+0.86%)
Green                    21                 12(-1)          28.69%(-2.47%)
Deep Green             3                   2(+1)           3.73%(+1.37%)
Total pan-Green     37                 19(+2)           45.29%(-0.30%)

Mostly a status quo election in terms of overall vote share by bloc.  Pan-Blue vote not distributed as well leading to the loss of 2 seats for the Pan-Blue bloc to the Pan-Green bloc.

County magistrate race
KMT              53.83%
DPP               41.72%
DPP rebel        2.88%
Ind.                1.57%

The KMT candidate was able to defeat the DPP incumbent by consolidating the Pan-Blue majority at the county assembly level despite the clear DPP lean at the county and national level.


Jaiyi County(嘉義縣) (PVI Green +10)

                        Candidates      Winners        Vote share
Blue                         9                  9(--)           20.51%(-2.19%)
Light Blue               14                  7(+2)         16.83%(+1.93%)
Total pan-Blue         23                16(+2)         37.34%(-0.26%)

Light Green            11                  4(-1)           13.51%(+5.40%)
Green                    22                 17(-1)           47.57%(-6.30%)
Deep Green             1                   0(--)             1.23%(+0.88%)
Total pan-Green     34                 21(-2)           62.31%(+0.01%)

Due to defeat in 2014-2016 defeats some of the KMT candidates ran as independents which resulted in a status quo election in terms of vote share balance between the blocs.  The Pan-Green camp over-nominated and lost a couple of seats.  This vote share distribution seems reasonable.  Before 2001 the pro-KMT Huang faction had around 35% of the vote, pro-KMT Lin party had around 30% of the vote and the DPP had around 35% of the vote.  After the Lin faction went over the the DPP and to some extent too over the DPP the balance should be around 65-35 at the local level between the Pan-Green and Pan-Blue blocs.

County magistrate race
DPP            50.95%
KMT           29.54%
DPP rebel    17.89%
KMT rebel     1.61%   

The DPP rebel stems from a civil war within the pro-DPP Lin faction which led to a very continuous DPP primary.  Some of the pro-KMT Huang faction also stepped in to help the Lin rebel faction.  In the end the KMT candidate was seen as an outsider so some of the Huang faction county assembly vote went over to back the DPP Lin faction rebel.
Logged
jaichind
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,761
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #224 on: December 08, 2018, 12:58:00 pm »
« Edited: February 04, 2019, 06:34:45 pm by jaichind »

Some more Deep Green counties

Pingdong County(屏東縣) (Green +8)

                        Candidates      Winners        Vote share
Deep Blue                2                  0                  0.25%(+0.25%)
Blue                       26                17(-2)           27.90%(-2.49%)
Light Blue               32                18(+6)          26.35%(+3.31%)
Total pan-Blue         60                35(+4)         54.50%(+1.07%)

Light Green             5                   4(-1)             7.33%(-0.04%)
Green                    30                 15(-3)          36.58%(-1.15%)
Deep Green             1                   1(--)             1.53%(+0.21%)
Total pan-Green     36                 20(-4)           45.43%(-0.99%)

Similar stories as other rural counties.  Some KMT candidates decided to run as independents due to the negative image of the KMT brand from 2014-2016 while over-nomination by the Pan-Green camp lost them a bunch of seats.

County magistrate race
DPP            55.90%
KMT           42.91%
KMT rebel    2.09%

The KMT local factions for county assembly in this Deep Green county (also Tsai home county) usually vote DPP at the county and national level.  What took place here seem at par and the anti-DPP wave seems to have mostly passed over this county given the popularity of the DPP incumbent.



Yilan County(宜蘭縣)  (PVI Green +6)

                        Candidates      Winners        Vote share
Blue                       16                 13(+2)        34.22%(-2.77%)
Light Blue               12                  6(+1)           9.95%(+0.25%)
Total pan-Blue         28                19(+3)         44.17%(-2.51%)

Light Green            20                   7(+1)          24.76%(+9.48%)
Green                    18                   8(-4)         28.39%(-9.27%)
Deep Green             3                   0(--)            2.31%(+2.11%)
Total pan-Green      41                15(-3)          55.46%(+2.37%)

Again, some KMT candidates ran as independents due to the negative perception of the KMT brand after 2014-2016 and at the same time Pan-Greens over-nominated leading to a large loss of seats for the Pan-Green camp even though the vote share balance shifted in the Green direction.  As a result the KMT will now flip control of the county assembly.  The DPP (or proto-DPP) has ruled Yilan most of the time since 1981 so a good part of the local KMT factions have moved over to the Pan-Green camp over time.

County magistrate race
KMT              49.48%
DPP               38.23%
KMT rebel       10.95%
Ind.                0.77%
Ind.                0.57%

The DPP camp was internally divided which allowed the KMT and KMT rebel to eat into the county assembly Pan-Green vote leading to an unexpectedly large defeat for the DPP candidate.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 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