|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 30, 2020, 11:37:45 AM

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results
  2012 U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: ON Progressive)
  Presidential Results vs. Senatorial Results
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Presidential Results vs. Senatorial Results  (Read 1312 times)
nclib
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,029
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 20, 2012, 10:30:17 PM »



Sanders is counted as a Democrat.

Red = Obama overperformed Democratic Senate candidate
Blue = Democratic Senate candidate overperformed Obama
Green = Both (or neither) major-party candidates outperformed Obama and Romney
Gray = no Senate election

Hatch was the only incumbent who underperformed their party's nominee (Feinstein and her opponent both outperformed Obama/Romney and Cardin and his opponent both underperformed Obama/Romney).

Comments? Somewhat deceptive with more Democratic incumbents up, both it appears Dems had stronger Senate nominees.
Logged
Calthrina950
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,380
United States


P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 09, 2019, 08:48:51 AM »

I am greatly surprised that no one ever responded to this, but in light of what has happened since, particularly with 2018, I would like to bump this forward. Some of the overperformances on the map were extraordinary, particularly in hindsight. The most startling example is West Virginia, where Manchin got 61% compared to 35% for Obama. North Dakota (Heitkamp 50%; Obama 39%), Missouri (McCaskill 55%; Obama 44%), Florida (Nelson 55%: Obama 50%), and Indiana (Donnelly 50%; Obama 44%) are other notable ones, as are New York (Gillibrand 72%; Obama 63%) and Minnesota (Klobuchar 65%; Obama 53%).
Logged
Sir Mohamed
MohamedChalid
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,584
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 09, 2019, 09:23:08 AM »

Interesting map. In the House, Obama outperformed Dems by 2%, but slightly underperformed the House PV in 2008.

It's noteworthy that Trump underperformed almost all GOP senate candidates in 2016.
Logged
coolface1572
Guest
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 08, 2019, 06:10:05 PM »

Interesting map. In the House, Obama outperformed Dems by 2%, but slightly underperformed the House PV in 2008.

It's noteworthy that Trump underperformed almost all GOP senate candidates in 2016.

One exception was in Missouri, where Trump did way better than Roy Blunt.
Logged
Calthrina950
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,380
United States


P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 27, 2020, 10:52:46 PM »
« Edited: June 25, 2020, 11:39:35 AM by Calthrina950 »

Interesting map. In the House, Obama outperformed Dems by 2%, but slightly underperformed the House PV in 2008.

It's noteworthy that Trump underperformed almost all GOP senate candidates in 2016.

Bumping this up again, but the Republican overperformances of 2016 were as impressive as the Democratic overperformances of 2012 over Obama. The most notable that spring to mind for me are Utah (Lee 68%; Trump 45%), Iowa (Grassley 60%; Trump 51%), Ohio (Portman 58%; Trump 51%), Kansas (Moran 62%, Trump 56%); South Carolina (Scott 61%; Trump 55%); Georgia (Isakson 55%; Trump 50%); and Arizona (McCain 54%; Trump 48%). Lee pretty much won all of Evan McMullin's voters, while the other Republicans clearly won a good chunk of Clinton voters, in addition to large numbers of Johnson voters as well.
Logged
Calthrina950
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,380
United States


P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 03, 2020, 08:31:55 AM »
« Edited: October 05, 2020, 11:23:16 PM by Calthrina950 »

Adding to above, Lee also probably won the bulk of Gary Johnson voters in Utah. Only a very small segment of Clinton voters went for him (Snow got approximately 9,000 fewer votes than Clinton did, and received a marginally lower percentage, 27.06%, compared to Clinton's 27.17%).

On the Democratic side, the most dramatic overperformances over Clinton were New York (Schumer 71%; Clinton 59%), Connecticut (Blumenthal 63%; Clinton 55%); Hawaii (Schatz 74%; Clinton 62%); Oregon (Wyden 57%; Clinton 50%); Washington (Murray 59%; Clinton 53%); and Vermont (Leahy 61%; Clinton 56%). This actually represents the bulk of Democratic Senators who won in 2016. Michael Bennet and Maggie Hassan only ran marginally ahead of Clinton, and Catherine Cortez-Masto and Tammy Duckworth ran behind her (Masto's margin of victory was 0.01% higher than Clinton's, but her percentage was 0.82% lower; moreover, she lost Washoe County, which Clinton carried).

I've always been particularly impressed by Schumer's performance in New York, and given all that has happened, am still struggling to grasp the motivations of the hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers-rural voters, Orthodox Jews, white working-class voters, and suburbanites-who split their tickets between him and Trump. Washington, Oregon, and Hawaii all had large third-party votes, and Hawaii Democrats almost always win reelection with more than 70% of the vote; moreover Murray and Wyden (especially the latter) are popular, long-established incumbents. The same is true for Blumenthal in Connecticut, and for Leahy in Vermont, though I am somewhat surprised the latter didn't outperform Clinton more than he did.
Logged
Literal Cultural Marxist (Christian)
Battista Minola 1616
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,337
Italy


Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: -0.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 03, 2020, 09:08:48 AM »

Adding to above, Lee also probably won the bulk of Gary Johnson voters in Utah. Only a very small segment of Clinton voters went for him (Snow got approximately 9,000 fewer votes than Clinton did, and received a marginally lower percentage, 27.06%, compared to Clinton's 27.17%).

On the Democratic side, the most dramatic overperformances over Clinton were New York (Schumer 71%; Clinton 59%), Connecticut (Blumenthal 63%; Clinton 55%); Hawaii (Schatz 74%; Clinton 62%)  Oregon (Wyden 57%; Clinton 50%); Washington (Murray 59%; Clinton 53%); and Vermont (Leahy 61%; Clinton 56%). This actually represents the bulk of Democratic Senators who won in 2016. Michael Bennet and Maggie Hassan only ran marginally ahead of Clinton, and Catherine Cortez-Masto and Tammy Duckworth ran behind her (Masto's margin of victory was 0.01% higher than Clinton's, but her percentage was 0.82% lower; moreover, she lost Washoe County, which Clinton carried).

I've always been particularly impressed by Schumer's performance in New York, and given all that has happened, am still struggling to grasp the motivations of the hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers-rural voters, Orthodox Jews, white working-class voters, and suburbanites-who split their tickets between him and Trump. Washington, Oregon, and Hawaii all had large third-party votes, and Hawaii Democrats almost always win reelection with more than 70% of the vote; moreover Murray and Wyden (especially the latter) are popular, long-established incumbents. The same is true for Blumenthal in Connecticut, and for Leahy in Vermont, though I am somewhat surprised the latter didn't outperform Clinton more than he did.

I think it is a New York thing where they like their incumbents a lot and/or Republicans have a candidate problem?
In the 21st century all Senate elections in New York have been at least D+34 save for the special election in 2010 (where there was no incumbent). No presidential candidate managed to beat D+28.
(I don't think that Hillary Clinton and Kirsten Gillibrand were and are especially more or especially less liked than Schumer)
Logged
Calthrina950
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,380
United States


P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 03, 2020, 09:14:20 AM »

Adding to above, Lee also probably won the bulk of Gary Johnson voters in Utah. Only a very small segment of Clinton voters went for him (Snow got approximately 9,000 fewer votes than Clinton did, and received a marginally lower percentage, 27.06%, compared to Clinton's 27.17%).

On the Democratic side, the most dramatic overperformances over Clinton were New York (Schumer 71%; Clinton 59%), Connecticut (Blumenthal 63%; Clinton 55%); Hawaii (Schatz 74%; Clinton 62%)  Oregon (Wyden 57%; Clinton 50%); Washington (Murray 59%; Clinton 53%); and Vermont (Leahy 61%; Clinton 56%). This actually represents the bulk of Democratic Senators who won in 2016. Michael Bennet and Maggie Hassan only ran marginally ahead of Clinton, and Catherine Cortez-Masto and Tammy Duckworth ran behind her (Masto's margin of victory was 0.01% higher than Clinton's, but her percentage was 0.82% lower; moreover, she lost Washoe County, which Clinton carried).

I've always been particularly impressed by Schumer's performance in New York, and given all that has happened, am still struggling to grasp the motivations of the hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers-rural voters, Orthodox Jews, white working-class voters, and suburbanites-who split their tickets between him and Trump. Washington, Oregon, and Hawaii all had large third-party votes, and Hawaii Democrats almost always win reelection with more than 70% of the vote; moreover Murray and Wyden (especially the latter) are popular, long-established incumbents. The same is true for Blumenthal in Connecticut, and for Leahy in Vermont, though I am somewhat surprised the latter didn't outperform Clinton more than he did.

I think it is a New York thing where they like their incumbents a lot and/or Republicans have a candidate problem?
In the 21st century all Senate elections in New York have been at least D+34 save for the special election in 2010 (where there was no incumbent). No presidential candidate managed to beat D+28.
(I don't think that Hillary Clinton and Kirsten Gillibrand were and are especially more or especially less liked than Schumer)

When Hillary Clinton initially ran for the Senate in 2000, she was viewed with skepticism by many New Yorkers, especially those upstate, and seen as a carpetbagger (which she was). To her credit, Clinton campaigned hard that year, and ultimately beat Rick Lazio 55-43% (the last time a Republican has managed to reach 40% in a Senate race in that state). In 2006, she overwhelmingly won reelection with 67% of the vote, having made a point to run up her margins that year, so that she could set herself up for her presidential bid in 2008. However, in the years since, Clinton's popularity in Upstate New York declined, thanks to Benghazi, the e-mail scandal, and the general issues affecting Democrats overall, and in 2016, she lost most of Upstate (outside of the major urban and suburban centers, Tompkins County, and Clinton County) to Trump.

Gillibrand, on her part, used to be more popular in Upstate than Schumer-this can be seen in 2012, when she won her first full Senate term, garnering 72% of the vote and winning all but two counties. Gillibrand had been a congresswoman from Northern New York before being appointed to the Senate, and was a moderate during her time in the House. I think her strong shift to the left in the years since and general anti-Democratic trends have eroded her popularity in those regions, and she did significantly worse in 2018 then she had in 2012, and worse than Schumer did in 2016.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« 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 0.033 seconds with 12 queries.