The next Vermonts and West Virginias (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 17, 2024, 05:01:30 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)
  The next Vermonts and West Virginias (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: The next Vermonts and West Virginias  (Read 19683 times)
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

« on: June 20, 2006, 12:54:00 AM »

I'm surprised no one chose my pick, New Jersey.  There were a few polls that showed it close for 2004, and there is plenty of incentive for NJ to vote Republican.
On our side, I think South Dakota and Montana were good choices by those who chose them.  Also, Wyoming should be noted.  Not that it will happen any time soon, but when Dick Cheney leaves office, WY will surely score some more points on the Democratic side.  This map seems to help my point.  Idaho should also be noted as trend toward us.


9/11 Bounce.  Not happening long term.  NJ is way too socially liberal for this Republican party.  The problem for us Dems in NJ is we get a lot of bad press there, but politically the state is not at all conservative except for South Central NJ and the Northwest/North Central mountains and parts of the I-287 corridor.  Even the I-287 corridor and Ocean/Monmouth counties are more or less libertarian.

That depends. New Jersey, even when times were tough for the GOP in 92 and 96, always gave the GOP nominee a steady base of support (Bush Sr. and Dole both broke 40% in NJ even when they were getting creamed elsewhere in the northeast...ie NY).

I think with NJ its the case Sam laid out. If the GOP nominates someone who is able to build a particular type coalition then I think NJ could become a reasonably reliable GOP state (as it was from 68-88, lets not forget GOP success there), or at the very least a definite swing state.

I think even though Bush came sorta close to winning NJ in 2004, I think he was the reason that ultimately the dems held on there. If Bush is the worst candidate the GOP nominates in the next 20 years, then the GOP could break NJ from the dem fold.

Granted, the GOP has to avoid either the ultra conservative or the uberstupid. Whether it does that...we'll see.

Correction: Dole got less than 36 percent in NJ in 1996. Bush did do decently in 1992 with 41 percent, however.

1996 was really the year that cemented the Northeast as a Democratic stronghold; Bush did reasonably well in the Nrotheast in 1992 even though he didn't win a state, but he was at least fairly competitive in several and some such as NJ were actually still more Republican than the national average.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

« Reply #1 on: October 03, 2006, 12:19:19 AM »
« Edited: October 03, 2006, 12:21:54 AM by Nym90 »

The idea that Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, or Minnesota are trending Republican is just plain wrong.

Kerry actually won both WI and MN by more than Gore did (despite of course doing worse nationally) and even in Michigan the swing towards Bush was less than the national average. Likewise Iowa, though it was one of only two states to flip from Gore to Bush, had a swing towards Bush of less than the national average, and actually went from being ever so slightly Republican leaning in 2000 to ever so slightly Democratic leaning in 2004.

Now, obviously one election does not a trend make (or stop perhaps), but I see no evidence in other statewide races that the Midwest is becoming more Republican.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
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 0.03 seconds with 12 queries.