Three important trends
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 05:26:01 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Three important trends
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Three important trends  (Read 8199 times)
Redefeatbush04
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,504


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: October 11, 2004, 07:22:19 PM »

Apparently you didn't notice all of the intentional spelling and gramatical errors. Haha.....I am from Massachusetts anyway (the smartest state). And also, I am bouncing between libertarian and democrat, but the red seems much more fitting.
Logged
CollectiveInterest
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 511


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: October 20, 2004, 11:14:26 AM »

Florida is trending Dem for President strongly. Arizona too, although less strongly.

Minnesota has a clear GOP trend.

WV and PA have weak GOP trends.

SC, VA and NE have slight Dem trends. Since NE and SC are so GOP people don't notice.

Barring major unheaval in US politics (and I expect major upheaval is more likely than not) FL and AZ will be part of the Dem base from 2008 on. If Dems have CA, NY, IL, FL, AZ, NJ, MD, WA, HI and most of New England that's a pretty formidable base to start from.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: October 20, 2004, 11:37:51 AM »

Florida is trending strongly towards the Republicans for president. It won't even be a battleground in 2008.
Logged
CollectiveInterest
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 511


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: October 20, 2004, 12:10:56 PM »

Florida is trending strongly towards the Republicans for president. It won't even be a battleground in 2008.

Philip, once again you are factually incorrect.

1988--45th (of 51 for the Democrats)
1992--35th
1996--28th
2000--22nd

The only state that has a longer trend is Minnesota which has gotten weaker for Dems in every election since 1984.

Bushies support faith-based policies.
Bush opponents support reality-based policies.
Logged
DaleC76
Rookie
**
Posts: 179


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: October 28, 2004, 12:11:51 AM »

The thing is, the last four elections are just so different from each other:

1988 - Landslide
1992 - Strongest 3rd party candidate in recent history.
1996 - Stronger-than-normal 3rd candidate
2000 - Virtual tied election.

I'm not sure if trends taken solely from their results are any indication of future party identification.  I'd be much more interested in seeing these results compared to and compiled with congressional voting from the same time frame.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: October 28, 2004, 10:20:58 AM »

Minnesota is not trending GOP, we are trending towards moderation Tongue

Yes, there is a difference.
Logged
Hitchabrut
republicanjew18
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,674


Political Matrix
E: 8.38, S: 7.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: November 13, 2004, 02:38:14 PM »

In a Giuliani vs. Hillary match-up, NJ would probably go for Giuliani. Just to remind everyone, most southern states would choose a moderate Republican over a liberal Democrat. Also, if Hillary ran, the GOP would be motivated to get out a high turnout of Hillary-haters.
Logged
Brutus
Rookie
**
Posts: 72


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: November 13, 2004, 03:06:18 PM »

Just to remind everyone, most southern states would choose a moderate Republican over a liberal Democrat.

Agreed, but it's those southern states that would ensure Guiliani would not be the nominee in the first.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: November 13, 2004, 03:29:27 PM »

I'm going to add a trent, very long term, from another thread:

I'm going to note something as a longer term trend.  There is effectively a presidential party.  All things being equal, the presidential party wins.  When it loses, it does so because of two factors:

1.  The vote is split with a major third party candidate.

2.  Because of #1, the non-presidential party candidate is up for re-election.

Look at the period between 1960 and 1976.  The Democrats, the presidential party of the day, had wone every presidental election, except 1968 (#1) and 1972 (#2).

Between 1980 and 1996, the Republicans won every election except 1992 (#1) and 1996 (#2).

The "fundamentals" might be (for various reasons) that the electorate choses a president for the "presidental party."  The Dems were the the presidential party between 1960-1976 and the Reps. were the presidential party from at least 1980-1996, possibly currently as well.

In this context, the Democrats showed weaker electoral strenght in 1980-96 than the GOP did in 1960-76. 

In one election during that period, 1972, the GOP had a majority of the PV (and this was the only time).  The Dems had three elections (1960, 1968, 1972) when they did not have a majority of the PV.  Between 1980-1996, the Dems never had a majority of the popular vote.  Only twice did the Reps not get a majority of the popular vote.

If you want to add 2000 and 2004 into this, the GOP had a three elections when they did not receive a majority, and Dems have now had a string of seven elections where they have not had a majority of the PV.  (They have had one PV victory in the last ten presidential elections.)

That has got to be a troubling fundamental for the Dems.  There is a long tern trend, in presidential elections to away from the Democratic party.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: November 14, 2004, 05:38:01 AM »

You got a point JJ, but what you're missing is that the trend is coming to an end. The Republicans dominated from 1968 and onwards. Look at it in 40 year cycles. You have a huge landslide for the dominating party in 1932 (1972). You then dominate for a few decades until a moderate with a lot of personal popularty comes along and wins easily in 1952 (1992). After that comes a very close election which the dominating party eventually wins in 1960 (2000). If Dean had been nominated we would probably have had a repeat of 1964. However, we should soon be looking at the end of the GOP trend at the presidential level. BUT! Local politics always lags behind, so just like it took roughly 2 decades for the GOP to go from winning presidential elections to getting control of congress it will take a similar amount of time before the Democrats can win any of the 2 houses.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.041 seconds with 11 queries.