Swing States in 2008
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 05:58:52 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results
  2004 U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  Swing States in 2008
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Swing States in 2008  (Read 8342 times)
Shira
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,858


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 19, 2004, 03:52:07 PM »



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

Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 19, 2004, 03:52:33 PM »

Virginia a swing state? Sure...lol
Logged
Shira
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,858


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 19, 2004, 04:01:42 PM »


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.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 19, 2004, 04:05:38 PM »


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.
Logged
Shira
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,858


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 19, 2004, 04:13:52 PM »


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.
Logged
Cashcow
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,843


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 19, 2004, 04:19:03 PM »

Same as this year except Oregon.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 19, 2004, 04:28:15 PM »

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
Logged
Shira
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,858


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: November 20, 2004, 07:17:13 AM »
« Edited: November 20, 2004, 07:20:46 AM by 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.

Logged
ATFFL
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,754
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: November 20, 2004, 08:27:53 AM »

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.




Except for the fact you have causality all backwards.  The national numbers do not cause the states to move, the states cause the national numbers to move.

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. 

There is no national popular vote.  It is a fiction created by the media.  If one party had 5 million votes, and the other had 30, the party with 50 wins if they win 1-0 in states with enough EVs.

There are 51 local elections.
Logged
Shira
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,858


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: November 20, 2004, 09:02:52 AM »
« Edited: November 20, 2004, 09:05:54 AM by 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.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: November 20, 2004, 09:13:31 AM »


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.
Logged
Shira
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,858


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: November 20, 2004, 10:53:08 AM »


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.
Logged
ATFFL
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,754
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: November 20, 2004, 11:00:04 AM »


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.
Logged
Shira
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,858


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: November 20, 2004, 11:18:48 AM »


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?

Logged
ATFFL
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,754
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: November 20, 2004, 11:42:01 AM »


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%

Here is one from a little further back:

Lousiana:
1960: Nixon 28.59%
1946: Goldwater 56.81%

Massachusets:
1960: Nixon 39.55%
1964: Goldwater 23.44%
Logged
WalterMitty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,572


Political Matrix
E: 1.68, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: November 20, 2004, 12:09:51 PM »


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.

umm yes.  mass was a republican state in 84.  we award electoral votes to the candidate that won the state...not by 'trends'...or how well they did compared to the national number.

Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: November 20, 2004, 12:39:52 PM »

she wasn't talking about the EV numbers, but whether that state would be considered safe for the Republicans in 1988 or not.

If all that matters is the margin won by, then Louisiana would've been considered safe for Gore in 2000.
Logged
Shira
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,858


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: November 20, 2004, 12:51:26 PM »
« Edited: November 20, 2004, 12:56:20 PM by 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.
Logged
WalterMitty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,572


Political Matrix
E: 1.68, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: November 20, 2004, 01:25:33 PM »

she wasn't talking about the EV numbers, but whether that state would be considered safe for the Republicans in 1988 or not.

If all that matters is the margin won by, then Louisiana would've been considered safe for Gore in 2000.

whatever gets you through the night, brtd.

remember...there is a small factor calle dthe CANDIDATES that have a lot to do with how a state votes.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: November 20, 2004, 01:38:24 PM »

remember...there is a small factor calle dthe CANDIDATES that have a lot to do with how a state votes.

Very true. Is it time for my Chocolate Kettle analogy now?
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: November 20, 2004, 03:17:07 PM »

Look at this way, if you totally ignore the national average, then you have Vermont going from voting Democrat only once in a landslide year to going by Clinton by over 15 points almost overnight.

But comparing Vermont's numbers through the 70s and 80s to the national average shows a definite trend.

It doesn't always work though (ex. Georgia from 1960-1980)
Logged
Shira
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,858


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: November 20, 2004, 06:26:21 PM »


but plus Virginia
Logged
ATFFL
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,754
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: November 20, 2004, 06:27:47 PM »


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.

I'm sorry, but those people who voted for Nader voted for Ralph Nader, not Al Gore and not John Kerry.  Nader was even on the ballot again this year so the people could have voted for him again if they chose.

Actually, if you add all other votes to George Bush I can say he took 100% of the vote, which puts him up at the level of Saddam Hussein and the old Communist Party in the Soviet Union.  So if we were a one party state Bush would have 100% of the vote.  Yay for ignoring those troubling other candidates!
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: November 20, 2004, 06:32:40 PM »

Nader went from 6.92% in 2000 to 1.44% in 2004 in Vermont. Where did that 5.48% go? The most logical answer is they voted for Kerry.
Logged
ATFFL
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,754
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: November 20, 2004, 06:41:00 PM »

Nader went from 6.92% in 2000 to 1.44% in 2004 in Vermont. Where did that 5.48% go? The most logical answer is they voted for Kerry.

Which would mean the democrat gained votes.  They did not vote democrat in 2000, no matter how you slice it.  In 2004 they did.  Thus the democratic party gained votes.
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 0.051 seconds with 14 queries.