How are these swing states trending?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 09:49:56 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: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  How are these swing states trending?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: How are these swing states trending?  (Read 9286 times)
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,695
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: December 26, 2004, 11:52:45 PM »

As for Pennsylvania, it'll remain a swing state for a long time. Can everyone agree on that?
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: December 26, 2004, 11:53:50 PM »

Look at Fairfax county (even in 1996) and say that.

Besides, it sure as hell isn't trending Republican.

I think you said the state as a whole. Now answer my question: How is a one point swing indicating a trend for the state?

I explained the national average deal, but even that's not needed. Even if you use the raw numbers, that's still a 1 point trend, and the question was which way were the states trending. Even if it's only a 1 point trend, it's obviously not trending Republican.

Nader. Take Bush's number in 2000 and compare it with Bush's 2004 number.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: December 26, 2004, 11:54:20 PM »

As for Pennsylvania, it'll remain a swing state for a long time. Can everyone agree on that?

Not with your logic. Nice try, BRTD. If you can insist that VA is moving Dem because of a one point difference, PA is also trending one way and that would be Republican.

2000 - Gore by 5
2004 - Kerry by about 2
 
Republican trend is only backed up by your theory.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,695
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: December 26, 2004, 11:58:25 PM »

I didn't say it was trending either way in that statement, I said it would remain a swing state.

I also think raw numbers are pointless, you have to compare to the national average. Unless you think Vermont and Calfornia magically turned as Democratic as they are now in only 4 years from '88-'92.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: December 26, 2004, 11:59:30 PM »

The national average is irrelevant. If MORE PEOPLE in the state vote REPUBLICAN, the state is NOT moving Democrat. It is moving LESS REPUBLICAN than the national average.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: December 27, 2004, 12:02:55 AM »

The national average is irrelevant. If MORE PEOPLE in the state vote REPUBLICAN, the state is NOT moving Democrat. It is moving LESS REPUBLICAN than the national average.

You are wrong, but still in one way right. If a state voted for Dukakis, that meant it was VERY Democratic, not that it went from extremely Democratic to a battleground.

However, you are also right in that it is not linear.

There are trends, but they are hard to find, hard to interpret, and hardly significant most of the time. And, by the time they show up, they are frequently gone.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,695
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: December 27, 2004, 12:06:54 AM »

The national average is irrelevant. If MORE PEOPLE in the state vote REPUBLICAN, the state is NOT moving Democrat. It is moving LESS REPUBLICAN than the national average.

then what happened in Vermont and California between 88 and 92?
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: December 27, 2004, 12:09:37 AM »

The economy started sucking and they swung heavily Democrat, just like the other 48 states.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,695
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: December 27, 2004, 12:23:49 AM »

and what happened in Vermont? That was the 2nd time in history it had ever voted Democrat, and it's been easily won by the Democrat in every following election. Did it just magically turn from a solidly Republican state to a solidly Democratic one overnight?
Logged
WMS
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,562


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: December 27, 2004, 01:16:51 AM »


New Mexico - Populist/Wash

We're on a knife's edge here, and given that what growth we have tends to be among the populist Hispanic population, I'd say NM will remain populist-leaning. It's a wash because neither of the state parties in NM is populist themselves, and so can't capitalize on it...
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: December 27, 2004, 02:10:07 AM »

and what happened in Vermont? That was the 2nd time in history it had ever voted Democrat, and it's been easily won by the Democrat in every following election. Did it just magically turn from a solidly Republican state to a solidly Democratic one overnight?

No, it gradually trended Democrat, which was aided by the economy and other national factors.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: December 27, 2004, 10:45:16 AM »


Ohio-R
Pennsylvania-nowhere
Minnesota-Nowhere
Wisconsin-Nowhere
Michigan-Slight Dem
Nevada-D
Arizona-Nowhere, will stay solid GOP for awhile
New Mexico-D
Colorado-D
Florida-D
Iowa-R
New Hampshire-D
Missouri-R
Virginia-D
West Virginia-R

This seems reasonable to me. However, it should be noted that some of these states have a long way to go, others are sold and little trend left.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: December 27, 2004, 10:50:08 AM »

The national average is irrelevant. If MORE PEOPLE in the state vote REPUBLICAN, the state is NOT moving Democrat. It is moving LESS REPUBLICAN than the national average.

Not true. If you reason like that analysis becomes pointless. In 1964 the entire country was trending Dem, except the Deep South. Then in 1968 it was all trending GOP, even more so in 1972. And so on and so on. It's completely pointless. Presidential elections are largely decided on personality. To make sense out of it you have to look at national averages.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: December 27, 2004, 11:08:31 AM »

1. Pennsylvania doesn't do trends. It does swings. Lots and lots of swings. And freak turnouts. And ticket splitting (hell, it's probably the ticket splitting capital of the U.S...).
Anyone trying to fit PA (even broad regions, maybe even the larger counties, of PA come to think of it) into "trends" is fooling themselves.

2. If WV is trending Republican how come the Democratic candidate won the open Gubernatorial seat with over 60% of the vote? How come it's sole GOP representative has to vote like a Democrat to get re-elected?

3. Please accept that Rationalism is irrational
Logged
ATFFL
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,754
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: December 27, 2004, 12:36:56 PM »

I first posted this in another thread.  I think it also goes here quite nicely.

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 the 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

Nevada:
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 more Democrat than last time and 6 more 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 the 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 moved 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 move to the Democrats.  North Carolina saw a slight move that could possibly be from 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 noticeable 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 the top of the D ticket and the Kerry campaign's "small state" strategy.

If anyone can tell me how voters in California have any effect on the voters in Alabama, I sure would like to know.  That is what you are saying when you insist the national average moves the states.  If California had voted the exact same way it did in 2000 in terms of percentages the Bush victory would be reduced by roughly .3% to a 2.2% victory.

Have other states changed how much they are trending in one direction or the other?  No, they have not changed one bit; only California has changed.  But California is big enough that the change had a huge impact on the national numbers so it looks like other states changed if you compare them to the national number.

What you can do is compare a state's trend to the national average and say if it moved more or less than the national change, or if it bucked the change and went the other direction.

Huge changes in the national average are going to be seen in most states numbers.  Not because the national numbers changed the states, but because a large change requires a lot of states to contribute to it.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,695
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: December 27, 2004, 12:39:59 PM »

No one has yet to explain how Vermont magically turned from a state that only voted for a Democrat once in history to a solidly Democratic state in only 4 years.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: December 27, 2004, 01:18:11 PM »

Tredrick, you have a point, yes. However, let's assume, for simplicity's sake (it isn't that simple, of course in real life) that there are 2 groups of voters in the country; those that lean Democrat and those that lean Republican. In a state like MA, which is solidly Democratic the dividing line betweeen D and R might be around 60-40. In the country it's roughly 50-50. Now if, for some reason the Democratic candidate is a little weaker than usual this will make some of the slight Dem voters vote for the Republican candidate. There might be more of those voters in certain places than in others. This means that roughly the same percentage of voters everywhere will move. This is of course oversmplified, but you get the idea. Californians and Alabamans (?) are affected by the same issues, policies, etc as all other voters. If a party fields a really weak candidate who appear to be an extremist, etc he might lose a lot of centrist voters, losing 40-60 nationally. Your line of thinking means that every time there is a landslide there is a national trend in favour of one party. In 1964 you would have doomed Republican chances of ever winning any election. 1972 you would have done the exact opposite.

The point is that a short-term political change in one election, such as Kerry being percieved as a weak Taxachussetts Liberal or Goldwater looking like a racist nutjob, etc have no long-term meaning. In a 2-party system things tend to even out in the long run. However, underlying demographic or other trends that changes a state's relation to the national average is a sound basis for analyses. The largest problem is that the setup of swing voters is not the same everywhere, which means that swings aren't uniform in all states.
Logged
ATFFL
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,754
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: December 27, 2004, 02:00:02 PM »

At no point do I say or imply that there is a national trend that carries from one election ot the other.  All I say is that the national average is effected by the states results.  I never compare the national results from one election ot the national results of another because teh national result is, ultimately, irrelevant.

There is no national trend.  Each region and each state has different issues or rank the national issues differently. 

Thinking the way I do is the reason the Republicans have done well in national elections.  Gore ran to win the popular vote under the assumption that would bring enough electoral votes.  Bush ran to win 270 electoral votes plus some possible cushion never caring about the PV.  We know how that turned out.

There are a lot of factorsthat go into how a state will turn out.  The states that were not battlegrounds generally saw movement toward Bush.  States that tend to be Republican went over the national average while states that are normally Democrat went below the national average.  There were, of course, a few notable exceptions to this that bear looking at to see if there is a trend starting or to see if there was some funky local factor we need to look at.

My main point is that when the national numbers move it is because the state numbers did.  To look at one state, look at the national numbers and say that the state is trending democrat because it changed less than the national average is a poor method of analysis. 

Iowa is a battleground state and has been for a long time.  Some people looked at it in 1988 going strongly for Dukakis and foolishly decided it was now a democrat stronghold.  No, it was effected by a local issue that murdered Bush I there.

Anything within 3% of the change in the national average is hard to make a case for a trend.  The only change less than 5% that I think may be real, genuine movement is Missouri and that is based more on regionalism setting in than anything.
Logged
elcorazon
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,402


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: December 27, 2004, 02:24:37 PM »

Ohio-steady
Pennsylvania-steady
Minnesota-maybe slightly republican
Wisconsin-very slightly republican - maybe steady
Michigan-dem very slightly
Nevada-Dem
Arizona-steady
New Mexico-Dem very slightly
Colorado-Dem
Florida-Dem very slightly
Iowa-Republican very slightly
New Hampshire-Dem
Missouri-Republican
Virginia-Dem
West Virginia-Republican

What do you think?

Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: December 27, 2004, 04:05:30 PM »

Swings happen all the time. Genuine trends are pretty rare... you cannot just line all the states up and fiddle around with a calculator and expect to be able to accurately predict future election results.

Besides you need to look at all the results in the state not just Presidential results, otherwise the picture can be messed up by all sorts of things.
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 0.054 seconds with 11 queries.