Idaho ignored?

[Shira]

If a Republican got 70% of the PV in 2008, do you think he'd get 90% in Utah? What if one state has a really partisan 45% Democratic base, and normally goes 53% for Republicans. If a Republican got 60% of the vote nationally and only 55% in the state, would you call it a Democratic state. Your indicator is everything except an indicator.

I understand the Buchanan stuff, though I imagine some of them went to Peroutka.

There is a strong correlation between state’s numbers and national numbers.
In 1984 Reagan won Massachusetts by getting 51.22% there. You can not say that in 1984  Massachusetts was a Republican state. The 51.22% that Reagan got there was by 7.55% less than his national victory. In Utah Reagan got 74.50% which was 15.73% above his national number, so Utah clearly was a strong Republican state.
An interesting number is (UT - MA). In 1984 it was 23.28%. Twenty years later in 2004 it is 34.76%

[A18]

Of course there is a strong correlation. The people of the nation and the people of the states are the same people. But the correlation is not absolute, and exists only in so much as the state averages drive the national averages. Some states are more partisan than others.

Massachusetts was certainly a Republican state in 1984. It was also certainly less Republican than the nation, if that's what you want to say.

[ATFFL]

Of course there is a strong correlation. The people of the nation and the people of the states are the same people. But the correlation is not absolute, and exists only in so much as the state averages drive the national averages. Some states are more partisan than others.

Massachusetts was certainly a Republican state in 1984. It was also certainly less Republican than the nation, if that's what you want to say.

Philip is correct.  The national numbers do not change the state numbers, the state numbers change the national numbers.  If California moves to teh Republicans by enough to shift the national numbers by 1% that does not mean a single person in any other state will change their mind and vote differently.  No one in Rhode Island is going to say "Well, the national numbers moved toward Bush so it is my responsibility to change my vote so my state moves along with them."

As much as some people would like to put Nader's votes onto Kerry and Gore and Buchanan's and Peroutka's votes onto Bush you can't.  Those votes were not cast for those candidates or parties, they were cast for a third party for a reason.  If the third party had not run things would be different, but they did run so things are not different.

Let's look at a few states:

BATTLEGROUND STATES:

Oregon:
Difference in 2000: .4% D
Difference in 2004: 4.2% D
Change: 3.8% to D

New Hampshire:
Difference in 2000: 1.2% R
Difference in 2004: 1.4% D
Change: 2.6% to D

Ohio:
Difference in 2000: 3.5% R
Difference in 2004: 2.1% R
Change: 1.4% to D

Navada:
Difference in 2000: 3.6% R
Difference in 2004: 2.6% R
Change: 1% to D

Minnesota:
Difference in 2000: 2.4% D
Difference in 2004: 3.4% D
Change: 1% to D

Wisconsin:
Difference in 2000: .2% D
Difference in 2004: .4% D
Change: .2% to D

New Mexico:
Difference in 2000: .06% D
Difference in 2004: .8% R
Change: .86% to R

Iowa:
Difference in 2000: .3% D
Difference in 2004: .7% R
Change: 1% to R

Michigan:
Difference in 2000: 5.1% D
Difference in 2004: 3.4% D
Change: 1.7% to R

Pennsylvania:
Difference in 2000: 4.2% D
Difference in 2004: 2.5% D
Change: 1.7% to R

Missouri:
Difference in 2000: 3.4% R
Difference in 2004: 7.2% R
Change: 3.8% to R

Florida:
Difference in 2000: .01% R (maybe)
Difference in 2004: 5% R
Change: 5% to R

What do we see here?  Very little movement.  Five states voted mroe Democrat than last time and 6 mroe Republican.  Most states saw very little change.  Kerry may have been helped in New Hampshire by being from a neighboring state.  To see if this is real movement we need to wait another cycle or two.

Same goes in FLorida.  Was the 5% gain real movement or was it bumped by the hurricane relief efforts Bush gave?

The only state I think saw genuine movement that will likely last is Missouri.  It seems to be joining the "solid south" for the Republicans.  Minnesota, Oregon and Michigan may have also seen some real movement.  Everything else is too little or the state has too long a history of being a battleground for the movement to mean much.

SECOND TIER BATTLEGROUND STATES

Washington:
Difference in 2000: 5.6% D
Difference in 2004: 7.2% D
Change: 1.6% D

Virginia:
Difference in 2000: 8% R
Difference in 2004: 8.2% R
Change: .2% to R

Arizona:
Difference in 2000: 6.3% R
Difference in 2004: 10.5% R
Change: 4.2% to R

Louisiana:
Difference in 2000: 7.7% R
Difference in 2004: 14.5% R
Change:  6.8% R

Tennessee:
Difference in 2000: 3.9% R
Difference in 2004: 14.3% R
Change: 10.4% to R

These states were all thought at one point to be in play to one degree or another and each was thought to be removed from teh table by the end of the campaign.

The only state that moved in the Democrats favor is Washington, everything else moved Republican to one degree or another.  Virginia hardly moved at all.

The big jump in Tennessee and Louisiana could be, in part, due to the lack of a southerner at the top of the Democratic ticket.  Either way they mvoed Republican solidly enough to impact the national number.

NON-BATTLEGROUND STATES

Vermont:
Difference in 2000: 9.9% D
Difference in 2004: 20.1% D
Change: 10.2% to D

North Carolina:
Difference in 2000: 12.8% R
Difference in 2004: 12.5% R
Change: .3% to D

California:
Difference in 2000: 11.8% D
Difference in 2004: 10% D
Change: 1.8% to R

Georgia:
Difference in 2000: 11.7% R
Difference in 2004: 16.6% R
Change: 4.9% to R

Utah:
Difference in 2000: 40.5% R
Difference in 2004: 45.5% R
Change: 5% to R

Rhode Island:
Difference in 2000:  29% D
Difference in 2004:  20.8% D
Change: 8.2% to R

Vermont saw a real, solid mvoe to the Democrats.  North Carolina saw a slight move that could possibly be frm having the VP on the Democrats be from this state.  We'll have to wait 4 years and see.

THe big surprise here is Rhode Island running to Bush.  I did not see that happening.


So where did the movement occur?  Where did Bush gain his popular vote victory?  Mostly in mid sized Republican strongholds turning out for him, especially in the south.  In many of these states his margin of victory doubled or more having a noticable impact on the national vote percentages.  None of Kerry's big movers were large enough to have that effect.

I think the main cause for the change in the national numbers is the lack of a southerner at teh top of the D ticket and the Kerry campaign's "small state" strategy.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

As much as some people would like to put Nader's votes onto Kerry and Gore and Buchanan's and Peroutka's votes onto Bush you can't.  Those votes were not cast for those candidates or parties, they were cast for a third party for a reason.  If the third party had not run things would be different, but they did run so things are not different.

so what you're saying is, almost every state trended BOTH Democrat and Republican from 1992-1996 and 1996-2000. How's that possible?

[ATFFL]

As much as some people would like to put Nader's votes onto Kerry and Gore and Buchanan's and Peroutka's votes onto Bush you can't.  Those votes were not cast for those candidates or parties, they were cast for a third party for a reason.  If the third party had not run things would be different, but they did run so things are not different.

so what you're saying is, almost every state trended BOTH Democrat and Republican from 1992-1996 and 1996-2000. How's that possible?

Because they trended away from a third choice.  It's really simple if you think about it.

lets make this simple.  A company produces four types of fruit pies.  Cherry, Blueberry, Apple  and Lemon.  In the first year of business Cherry and Blueberry each represent 40% of all pies sold.  The Orange pie represents 19% of all pies sold and the Lemon is only 1%.

Next year Apple falls out of favor and the people buying them mostly switch to buying other flavors or give up on pies all together.  After the second year sales of Cherry pies are up to 49% of all pies sold, Blueberry is at 45%, Apple hangs on at 5% and Lemon still represents 1%.  Best of all overall sales of pie are up.

The CEO now has to prepare to explain the situation to the stockholders.  He tells them that overall sales are up and sales of Cherry and Blueberry flavors are both markedly up, with Cherry narrowly outselling Blueberry.  Sales of Apple pies are down, but most customers have switched to one of the other, more popular flavors.  Lemon sales are slow, but steady and the supporters of the Lemon pie are very vocal and a key market segment to keep.

Now one of the stockholders really likes Blueberry pie.  So he wants to make it seem liek the most popular flavor.  He argues that most people still eating Apple pies would eat Blueberry pies if the Apple was not on the market and that Blueberry is actually the strongest seller.  Even if what he says about the Apple pie eaters is true, the cold hard reality is that the Apple pie is still on the market despite his best efforts and the Cherry line is the most popular line of all on the market.

Obviously things are more complex than that, be the same principal applies.  You cannot just ignore unpleasant bits of reality and do a proper analysis.

If you read all that and are not now hungry then you are a better person than I.