Swing States in 2008

[Shira]

MI, PA, NH, WI, NM, IA, NV, OH, FL, CO, MO, VA

[Shira]

Virginia a swing state? Sure...lol

In 2000 Bush got there 4.17% above his national number.
In 2004 he got there 2.71% above his national. This trend started in 1992. If the 2008 election is close on the national level,  VA will be a swing state. If the election is not close, then the term "Swing State" is meaningless.

[Shira]

Virginia a swing state? Sure...lol

In 2000 Bush got there 4.17% above his national number.
In 2004 he got there 2.71% above his national. This trend started in 1992. If the 2008 election is close on the national level,  VA will be a swing state. If the election is not close, then the term "Swing State" is meaningless.

Thats really meaningless. What means something is the amount in which he won Virginia by.

In 1984 Reagan won MA by 2.79% margin  ( 15% less than his national margin).
Was MA a Rep state in 1984 ?
No.

[Shira]

Shira, while you're method might have had a little use this year, it's useless for 2008:

George W Bush is not allowed to seek re-election in 2008

It is not Bush specific.
The "State minus National" number is the best indicator showing how Republican or how Democratic a state is.  It completely eliminates the impact of the national outcome.
If the election were absolutely close (49.5% to each candidate) then the number the GOP and the Dem got in a state would have reflected their real power in that state.
If this is not exactly the case, then you should make the correction.
In last election the real power of the GOP in a state is the number they got there minus 1.5%, because nationally Bush got 1.5% above 49.5%.   
If Bush got 55% in a state then it is a 5.5% victory. These 5.5% should be separated to 1.5% + 4%, where 1.5 is the national component and 4 is the state-local component, which reflects the GOP power in that state.

[Shira]

Lets say that the Kerry GOTV machine cranked things up in NY and CA for some reason.  If he had gotten an additional 4 million votes in those 2 states and won the PV -- but no other state had a single vote difference -- you would be on here talking about how dramatically some states swung to Bush by comparing the state result to the national average. 

Impossible situation. Had Kerry gained 4 million in these two states he would have proportionally gained in all other states.
Nothing in presidential race is CA specific.  If Kerry had gained, for example 7% in CA then he would have gained 5% - 9% in each and every state including UT and WY.

[Shira]

Lets say that the Kerry GOTV machine cranked things up in NY and CA for some reason.  If he had gotten an additional 4 million votes in those 2 states and won the PV -- but no other state had a single vote difference -- you would be on here talking about how dramatically some states swung to Bush by comparing the state result to the national average. 

Impossible situation. Had Kerry gained 4 million in these two states he would have proportionally gained in all other states.
Nothing in presidential race is CA specific.  If Kerry had gained, for example 7% in CA then he would have gained 5% - 9% in each and every state including UT and WY.

Why? The voters in UT and WY would have known that CA was going to vote at a higher rate and instict would have told them to go out and vote? lol Ridiculous theory.

From 1980 to 1984 Reagan gained 8% nationally.
Check and see what happened in the states. Reagan gained between 4% to 12% in each state.
By no means it is possible that between two elections a candidate will gain 5% in GA and  drop 8% in MD for example. If a candidate goes down by  8% in MD he will go down  in each and every state. If he goes down by only 3% in MD, then there are still states where his numbers could go up.

[Shira]

Lets say that the Kerry GOTV machine cranked things up in NY and CA for some reason.  If he had gotten an additional 4 million votes in those 2 states and won the PV -- but no other state had a single vote difference -- you would be on here talking about how dramatically some states swung to Bush by comparing the state result to the national average. 

Impossible situation. Had Kerry gained 4 million in these two states he would have proportionally gained in all other states.
Nothing in presidential race is CA specific.  If Kerry had gained, for example 7% in CA then he would have gained 5% - 9% in each and every state including UT and WY.

That makes less than zero sense.  You are saying when my friend in Alabama decided to vote people in each and every other state decided to vote as well?  Why?  How?

There is no national race and the majority of election events are local and not national.  The first swift boat ads were national events because of the media coverage and Kerry making them a national issue.  The later ones I only saw thanks to the Internet.  Moveon.org ads were never national events, they only aired in a few key battleground states.

Despite all the media coverage stump speeches remain a local event.  This is why every candidate uses the same stump speech for weeks or more at a time.

GOTV drives are inherently local.  If I drive a dozen friends to the polls in NC to vote for Bush I do not drive a dozen people in each and every state, just my own.  Even a nationwide GOTV drive, such os the ACT one and Moveon's drive, are a collection of local drives.  Just because they drive 100,000 voters to the polls in Florida does not mean the Ohio drive will succeed in getting a single voter to the polls.

If what you were saying is true, if all states voter turnout was driven by the national numbers, turnout in each state would be the same.  An increase in California would be perfectly mirrored in each and every state.  It simply does not happen.

Could you recall one single case, where between two consecutive elections, a party gained 6% or more in state A and lost 6% or more in state B?

[Shira]

Could you recall one single case, where between two consecutive elections, a party gained 6% or more in state A and lost 6% or more in state B?

Not quite, but I can give you an example of an 8% gain with a 5% loss, which is actually more extreme than what you asked for.  THough to do so I have to reach back all the way in time to a few weeks ago.

Vermont:
2000: Gore 50.63%
2004: Kerry 58.94%

Alabama:
2000: Gore 41.59%
2004: Kerry 36.86%

In Vermont the Dem practically gained only 2.63%. The 50.63% is not the real number of Gore. In 2000 Nader got over 6% in VT.
You can see it with Bush who droped 2.56% during the same period. (Buchanan got few fractions of a percent in 2000).
In Alabama Bush gained 5.54% from 2000 to 2004. 
I will later look into the 60-64 example  you have brought, but as to Vermont-Alabama
we have -2.56 vs. +5.54 and not -6 vs. +6.

[Shira]

Same as this year except Oregon.

but plus Virginia

[Shira]

Shira is basically talking about votes shifting between the two main parties though.

Why?  We are in a two party dominated system, but we also have third party spoilers. 

She was talking about one party gaining 6% in one state while losing 6% in another.  No mention of taking it all from the other major party. 

When you do comparison analysis, you have to eliminate aberrations like Perot, Nader and Buchanan (to a lesser extend). You have to decide what would had been the results without these ‘aberrations’. In the case of Nader and Buchanan it is very simple.