Do you see any major shifts in the next decade?

[Kevin]

Dark Blue=hard right
Light Blue=gradual rightward shift
Grey=little or no change
Light Red=gradual leftward shift
Dark Red=hard left

I agree with everyting except FL, Which I think is beginning to trend hard right, NH which is sowing signs of going hard left along with ME which is also showing the same and AZ, MO,MI are trending center.   

[Smash255]

Dark Blue=hard right
Light Blue=gradual rightward shift
Grey=little or no change
Light Red=gradual leftward shift
Dark Red=hard left

1.  How the hell is Maine trending GOP??

2.  Where is Colorado on here??

I have disagreements on others, but these are the most blatant

[Reignman]

This seems to roughly be our concensus:

Image Link

[Smash255]

This seems to roughly be our concensus:

Image Link

How exactly do you come to that conclusion as a consensus???  Quite a few off, but especially on NJ & NC???

[Gabu]

Dark Blue=hard right
Light Blue=gradual rightward shift
Grey=little or no change
Light Red=gradual leftward shift
Dark Red=hard left

I agree with everyting except FL, Which I think is beginning to trend hard right, NH which is sowing signs of going hard left along with ME which is also showing the same and AZ, MO,MI are trending center.   

So you basically agree with everything except for everything.

[Reignman]

This seems to roughly be our concensus:

Image Link

How exactly do you come to that conclusion as a consensus???  Quite a few off, but especially on NJ & NC???

Those're mistakes. I didn't go state by state (I tried to do it by memory).

[Smash255]

This seems to roughly be our concensus:

Image Link

How exactly do you come to that conclusion as a consensus???  Quite a few off, but especially on NJ & NC???

Those're mistakes. I didn't go state by state (I tried to do it by memory).

Can't see why you would think why either state would be trending GOP in the 1st place. 

[Josh/Devilman88]

Trust me, there is no republican trend going on in MI.  Some of the old republican strongholds are solidly Democrat, and those. along with the old Democrat areas win the election for the Dems.  We have also had a loss of population, and like any neighborhood going downhill, the more wealthy are able and willing to move away leaving the poor behind.  The poor vote Democrat.  The only way a republican will win MI these days is if there is a really poor Dem on the ticket.

The best example is Kalamazoo where I am originally from.  Used to be a hands down win for republicans.  Today, it is solidly Democrat, and every one of my formerly republican family members vote straight Dem today.  It is also the home of liberal activist billionaire Jon Stryker whose company makes much of the medical equipment used on you when you go to the doctor.

I would have to say you are wrong.  A few years back you would have not think MI would be a toss-up to lean Demorcatic state, but now it is.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Trust me, there is no republican trend going on in MI.  Some of the old republican strongholds are solidly Democrat, and those. along with the old Democrat areas win the election for the Dems.  We have also had a loss of population, and like any neighborhood going downhill, the more wealthy are able and willing to move away leaving the poor behind.  The poor vote Democrat.  The only way a republican will win MI these days is if there is a really poor Dem on the ticket.

The best example is Kalamazoo where I am originally from.  Used to be a hands down win for republicans.  Today, it is solidly Democrat, and every one of my formerly republican family members vote straight Dem today.  It is also the home of liberal activist billionaire Jon Stryker whose company makes much of the medical equipment used on you when you go to the doctor.

I would have to say you are wrong.  A few years back you would have not think MI would be a toss-up to lean Demorcatic state, but now it is.

Then you clearly don't know much about Michigan a few years ago.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

[Alcon]

Mr. Moderate, I'm curious about your logic in regards to Oregon.

[DownWithTheLeft]

This seems to roughly be our concensus:

Image Link

How exactly do you come to that conclusion as a consensus???  Quite a few off, but especially on NJ & NC???

Smash, NJ is trending right, but they seem to peaking at about 45-47%

[Boris]

Mr. Moderate, I'm curious about your logic in regards to Oregon.

Same here. I believe that when you look at presidential election trends since 1992, Oregon ranks like 4th in the nation when it comes to trending Democrat.

[Reignman]

Mr. Moderate, I'm curious about your logic in regards to Oregon.

Same here. I believe that when you look at presidential election trends since 1992, Oregon ranks like 4th in the nation when it comes to trending Democrat.

Some people think it's trending back a little since a couple years ago.

[Smash255]

This seems to roughly be our concensus:

Image Link

How exactly do you come to that conclusion as a consensus???  Quite a few off, but especially on NJ & NC???

Smash, NJ is trending right, but they seem to peaking at about 45-47%

 based off what exactly??  NJ was closer in 04, but that was manily due to the 9/11 bump Bush got throughout the metro area (Long Island, parts of the Hudson Valley, and CT as well as NJ).  That bump for the GOP has since gone away and NJ is basically as Democratic as it was during the late 90's and 2000, same for the rest opf the region (maybe even more Democratic on LI since the GOP keeps losing more & more seats here) but NJ really isn't trending GOP at all.  It was a 9/11 bump that is over.

[Aizen]

[HardRCafé]

Same here. I believe that when you look at presidential election trends since 1992, Oregon ranks like 4th in the nation when it comes to trending Democrat.

Considering Dukakis did better there than Gore or Kerry:  how?

[Alcon]

Mr. Moderate, I'm curious about your logic in regards to Oregon.

Same here. I believe that when you look at presidential election trends since 1992, Oregon ranks like 4th in the nation when it comes to trending Democrat.

Some people think it's trending back a little since a couple years ago.

I'm getting deja vu, so sorry if I've ranted like this before.

The way I look at it it, Washington County and such doesn't seem to have any indications of trending anything but Dem.  Clackamas County has its inner suburbs (they go along with Washington County) like Lake Oswego and then its outer exurbs, which I don't see as getting any more GOP.

Beyond that, I'm not sure where the GOP would improve...the growth around Bend isn't good enough, and probably not even Republican enough.  I see it as stagnant, with more potential for the Dems.

The only area I really see the Dems risking losing in Oregon in the near future is Columbia County, and it continues to be inexplicably resistant.  I was expecting it to trend Bush big time in 2004 like other working-class counties with lots of Dem-friendly evangelicals.

[bgwah]

[DownWithTheLeft]

based off what exactly??  NJ was closer in 04, but that was manily due to the 9/11 bump Bush got throughout the metro area (Long Island, parts of the Hudson Valley, and CT as well as NJ).  That bump for the GOP has since gone away and NJ is basically as Democratic as it was during the late 90's and 2000, same for the rest opf the region (maybe even more Democratic on LI since the GOP keeps losing more & more seats here) but NJ really isn't trending GOP at all.  It was a 9/11 bump that is over.

The bump is yet to be seen whether or not it went away, that will be decided in the 2008 election.  However, if NJ was turning Dem then I think either Garrett or Ferguson would have been defeated.  The fact that they both held their seats and Kean had a decent showing say that NJ should let the GOP keep getting that 45-47 continually

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

based off what exactly??  NJ was closer in 04, but that was manily due to the 9/11 bump Bush got throughout the metro area (Long Island, parts of the Hudson Valley, and CT as well as NJ).  That bump for the GOP has since gone away and NJ is basically as Democratic as it was during the late 90's and 2000, same for the rest opf the region (maybe even more Democratic on LI since the GOP keeps losing more & more seats here) but NJ really isn't trending GOP at all.  It was a 9/11 bump that is over.

The bump is yet to be seen whether or not it went away, that will be decided in the 2008 election.  However, if NJ was turning Dem then I think either Garrett or Ferguson would have been defeated.  The fact that they both held their seats and Kean had a decent showing say that NJ should let the GOP keep getting that 45-47 continually

You're nuts.  Ferguson and Garrett are supposed to have safe districts.  The fact that Ferguson almost lost and Garrett got held down to somewhere near 10% by a disaster of a candidate just goes to show that New Jersey is trending to the Democrats, not the other way around.

County by county, Democrats are gaining: Somerset, Burlington, Atlantic, and Bergen all immediately come to mind as trending leftward.  Ferguson even showed weakness in reliably Republican Hunterdon County last year.

Look for Democrats to expand their majorities in the State Senate and possibly the State Assembly too this year.

[nclib]

Does anyone want to take a stab at guessing the swing map from 2004-2008, compared to the national average?

For a start, NJ, NY, and CT will trend towards Dems without the 9/11 bump. Also, Louisiana will trend GOP with a smaller black population.

[Smash255]

based off what exactly??  NJ was closer in 04, but that was manily due to the 9/11 bump Bush got throughout the metro area (Long Island, parts of the Hudson Valley, and CT as well as NJ).  That bump for the GOP has since gone away and NJ is basically as Democratic as it was during the late 90's and 2000, same for the rest opf the region (maybe even more Democratic on LI since the GOP keeps losing more & more seats here) but NJ really isn't trending GOP at all.  It was a 9/11 bump that is over.

The bump is yet to be seen whether or not it went away, that will be decided in the 2008 election.  However, if NJ was turning Dem then I think either Garrett or Ferguson would have been defeated.  The fact that they both held their seats and Kean had a decent showing say that NJ should let the GOP keep getting that 45-47 continually

Your forgetting the type of districts both Garrett and Ferguson have.  Garrett is in a VERY Republican district, one of only two districts Bush won in 2000, the 2nd most Republican district in the state, while Ferguson's district did go to Gore in 00, it was made more GOP through redistricting, and is the 4th most GOP district in the state, this is seen by the district jumping much more Republican than even the state did between 2000 and 2004.

Not to mention while Garrett won by a decent margin (about 11) he outspent his opponent by 2-1, in a very GOP district.  Ferguson, who was also in a strong GOP district only won by a shade over 1%, despite outspending his opponent by $1 million.

To say those two winning showed that the state is moving right is a bit silly, considering the Republican bent of the districts themselves, the very tight race in one race, as well as the amount the two of them outspent their opponents

[they don't love you like i love you]

Ferguson's district didn't even vote for Gore. The seat he represented in 2000 did, but the new district voted for Bush both times. The fact that it was even close just shows how much of an idiot Ferguson is, there is no reason that seat should be competitive. As much as I'd love to see him gone, Stender would've most likely been a one-termer, perhaps a more moderate Democrat could hold the seat but Stender would've easily been one of the liberal out of NJ's delegation (didn't she promise to push for the impeachment of Bush?). The fact that someone so liberal came so close to beating Ferguson is not something Republicans should be happy about.

Garrett's district is not, never was and under the current lines never will be competitive. Garrett doesn't fit the district well, it'd be more well suited to Frelinguysen or even Saxton. But no one with an R next to their name is going to lose in that district, and it'll never be a serious target. Garrett's victories aren't really proof of anything more than Donald Payne's victories are.

[Reignman]

Mr. Moderate, I'm curious about your logic in regards to Oregon.

Same here. I believe that when you look at presidential election trends since 1992, Oregon ranks like 4th in the nation when it comes to trending Democrat.

Some people think it's trending back a little since a couple years ago.

I'm getting deja vu, so sorry if I've ranted like this before.

The way I look at it it, Washington County and such doesn't seem to have any indications of trending anything but Dem.  Clackamas County has its inner suburbs (they go along with Washington County) like Lake Oswego and then its outer exurbs, which I don't see as getting any more GOP.

Beyond that, I'm not sure where the GOP would improve...the growth around Bend isn't good enough, and probably not even Republican enough.  I see it as stagnant, with more potential for the Dems.

The only area I really see the Dems risking losing in Oregon in the near future is Columbia County, and it continues to be inexplicably resistant.  I was expecting it to trend Bush big time in 2004 like other working-class counties with lots of Dem-friendly evangelicals.

Oh, I agree completely, but there are still a lot of people out there who think Oregon is trending right.