The New and Improved Sam Spade Good Post Gallery. (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 20, 2024, 01:08:34 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Forum Community
  Forum Community (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, YE, KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸)
  The New and Improved Sam Spade Good Post Gallery. (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: The New and Improved Sam Spade Good Post Gallery.  (Read 13691 times)
Technocracy Timmy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,640
United States


« on: June 10, 2017, 10:29:13 PM »

Drawing from the data provided by the Results section of Atlas, I created the weighted Presidential Election trends by US state from 2000-2016. Merely finding the mean of those results or just looking at the past election or two seemed, to me, unlikely to yield the sort of data I was seeking, so I decided to use weighted data to develop the results. The methodology I utilized was simple...

a=b(c)+d(e)+f(g)+h(i)+j(k)/c+e+g+i+k

Where...

a = Weighted trend from 2000-2016
b = 2000 trend (positive for Democratic, negative for Republican)
c = 1 (for year 2000)
d = 2004 trend (positive for Democratic, negative for Republican)
e = 2 (for year 2004)
f = 2008 trend (positive for Democratic, negative for Republican)
g = 3 (for year 2008)
h = 2012 trend (positive for Democratic, negative for Republican)
i = 4 (for year 2012)
j = 2016 trend (positive for Democratic, negative for Republican)
k = 5 (for year 2016)

I'm not a statistician or mathematician or anything like that, so perhaps there is an easier method for obtaining these results, but that worked well enough for me to get what I needed. Anyway, on to the results...

Positive (+) results signify a positive Democratic trend/negative Republican trend
Negative (-) results signify a negative Democratic trend/positive Republican trend

+6.7% | Utah1
+5.1% | California
+2.9% | Alaska
+2.8% | Maryland
+2.8% | Virginia
+2.6% | District of Columbia
+2.6% | Texas
+2.1% | Colorado
+1.9% | Hawaii
+1.9% | Washington
+1.6% | Georgia
+1.5% | Arizona
+1.4% | North Carolina
+1.4% | Oregon
+1.1% | New Mexico
+1.0% | Vermont
+0.6% | Illinois
+0.5% | Massachusetts
+0.4% | Kansas
+0.4% | Nevada
+0.2% | New Jersey
+0.1% | Idaho
0.0% | Nebraska
-0.2% | Florida
-0.4% | South Carolina
-0.5% | New York
-0.7% | Connecticut
-1.0% | Delaware
-1.1% | New Hampshire
-1.8% | Pennsylvania
-1.9% | Minnesota
-1.9% | Wisconsin
-2.0% | Montana
-2.4% | Indiana
-2.7% | Alabama
-2.8% | Michigan
-2.8% | Ohio
-3.0% | Louisiana
-3.0% | Maine
-3.3% | Oklahoma
-3.5% | Rhode Island
-3.9% | Wyoming
-4.3% | Iowa
-4.5% | South Dakota
-4.6% | Kentucky
-4.8% | Missouri
-4.8% | Tennessee
-5.4% | North Dakota
-5.7% | Arkansas
-10.5% | West Virginia

1: Utah's trend numbers have been particularly disturbed by third party candidates - specifically, 2016 Independent candidate Evan McMullin.

The corresponding map looks rather interesting...


*Red = trending Democratic, Blue = trending Republican*
Electoral Votes: 271 (D), 260 (R), 7 (No Trend)

Does anyone have any interpretations of the results? The most obvious to me is that the Democratic Party is trending strongest in the West and "New South," along with a few other states in the Midwest and Northeast. It is the center of the country that has trended firmly towards the Republicans, along with Maine and Rhode Island in New England.
Logged
Technocracy Timmy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,640
United States


« Reply #1 on: September 03, 2018, 08:33:50 PM »

Big Cities have more intelligent and educated people. It's a fact that those with an IQ over 140 vote almost unanimously for Democrats, and those with an IQ under 80 vote overwhelmingly though not unanimously for Republicans.
Logged
Technocracy Timmy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,640
United States


« Reply #2 on: September 03, 2018, 08:51:24 PM »

Why on Earth are people still using this garbage thread named after a racist troll that was started by a mysoginistic moron poster only because he was angry about the current thread being named after a woman?

I’ve never seen the atlas forum summarized so eloquently in one sentence before.
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 0.022 seconds with 12 queries.