Why are the Rockies swinging Dem?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 16, 2024, 08:23:51 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: 100% pro-life no matter what)
  Why are the Rockies swinging Dem?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Why are the Rockies swinging Dem?  (Read 5781 times)
nclib
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,303
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: January 15, 2013, 07:33:29 PM »

Oldies' post and Antonio's are both very true.

Let's not forget that 2000 was a horrible year for Democrats in the Mountain West. Look, just look at the 1996-2000 trend map:



As much as Democrats might have gained from 2004 on, they aren't even close to their pre-2000 levels there.

I checked Clinton's raw 1996 numbers to see if the issue was Perot and it doesn't appear to be (mainly) that:

Trend in Dem%:

CO   5.26%
MT   -1.33%
ID   -3.05%
AZ   -3.87%
NM   -8.14%
UT   -10.41%
WY   -10.82%


I don't understand how you got these numbers. Huh

Modified trend. I used the raw Dem % in 1996 and 2012 rather than margin for the swing. Then I subtracted 1.8% (Obama 2012 national - Clinton 1996 national) for the trend.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,061
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: January 16, 2013, 09:41:41 AM »

Oldies' post and Antonio's are both very true.

Let's not forget that 2000 was a horrible year for Democrats in the Mountain West. Look, just look at the 1996-2000 trend map:



As much as Democrats might have gained from 2004 on, they aren't even close to their pre-2000 levels there.

I checked Clinton's raw 1996 numbers to see if the issue was Perot and it doesn't appear to be (mainly) that:

Trend in Dem%:

CO   5.26%
MT   -1.33%
ID   -3.05%
AZ   -3.87%
NM   -8.14%
UT   -10.41%
WY   -10.82%


I don't understand how you got these numbers. Huh

Modified trend. I used the raw Dem % in 1996 and 2012 rather than margin for the swing. Then I subtracted 1.8% (Obama 2012 national - Clinton 1996 national) for the trend.

Ah, I see. Good job! Smiley

You got NM, wrong though. Fixed it and added a few neighboring States for comparison.

NV +6.63%
CO +5.26%
NM +2.01%
NE +1.28%
KS +0.11%
MT -1.33%
ID -3.05%
ND -3.23%
AZ -3.87%
SD -4.96%
UT -10.41%
WY -10.82%

Translated on a map, with 2.5% increments (ie, the normal trend scale).

Logged
nclib
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,303
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: January 16, 2013, 10:18:43 PM »

I've changed NM on my original post (not really a Rockies state anyways). The Rockies aren't really trending Dem compared to 1996. Esp. keeping in mind that without Perot, Clinton would still have gotten some of those votes (even if most would go GOP). KS trending by only 0.11% is likely due to it being Bob Dole's home state in 1996.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,061
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: January 17, 2013, 07:37:14 AM »

Also, here is the 1988-2008 trend (normal Atlas calculation method).


Considering the West further trended R in 2012, you can see just how much ground has been lost...
Logged
old timey villain
cope1989
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,741


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: January 17, 2013, 02:14:11 PM »

Also, here is the 1988-2008 trend (normal Atlas calculation method).


Considering the West further trended R in 2012, you can see just how much ground has been lost...

Farm crisis in 1988, so Dukakis overperformed
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,061
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: January 17, 2013, 05:38:18 PM »

True... here's 1984.


It might make little sense to go that far, but Perot in the 1990s screws everything. Tongue
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 0.218 seconds with 12 queries.