|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 05, 2020, 06:52:19 pm
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: Virginiá)
  Alaska: the new Montana
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Alaska: the new Montana  (Read 643 times)
illegaloperation
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 783


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 08, 2013, 11:34:00 am »

Alaska could be the new Montana.

Alaska is more elastic than Montana and like Montana, Alaska has 3 electoral votes.

Alaska is also fast moving to the left due to immigration of liberal residents.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Logged
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,530
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.23, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 08, 2013, 01:38:16 pm »

There are a lot of reasons to think Alaska could have democratic potential, its just not ready yet though. For one thing, Obama did really well with Native Alaskans along with all the other minority groups and also did better with whites, all demographic trends that could be temporary. According to my ranking system (where I rank states from Solid, Strong, Weak) Alaska went from Solid to Strong from 2008 to 2012. Alaska has been solid for some time, and this trend needs to be kept an eye on in the coming years to be validated as a ongoing trend. Although we can assume influx from liberal states will tilt the state more democratic, its not a safe assumption. Just because they're coming from liberal states doesn't mean that they themselves are going to liberal.

I disagree with your concept that Alaska is the new Montana however. I did a recent thread on why Montana is probably moving to the right and you rejected it. Montana and Alaska were about the same in 2012 results but the have very different characteristics. Alaska could be moving in a liberal direction, but as I mentioned above its certainly not ready to be a swing state. Its very hard for an Alaska democrat to get >50% of the vote right now, and Mark Begich almost acheived that goal in 2008, we'll see if he can do it in 2014.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,469


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 08, 2013, 01:44:22 pm »

Alaska also has the third highest union density in the country.
Logged
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,643
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 08, 2013, 02:49:06 pm »

We already have a thread about this. Alaska is too big and has far too much elbow space to ever be contested by either party. It's twice the size of Montana. You mean to tell me that either party is going to spend time and spend money traveling there for 3 Electoral votes? It doesn't have the terrain to become like Delaware or Vermont and the sizes aren't comparable. I see it becoming light red and purplish red if Democrats win by enough. We probably all agree that Alaska will never be a toss up. What else we should agree on is Alaska's trend must continue for this to happen.
Logged
illegaloperation
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 783


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 08, 2013, 04:02:41 pm »
« Edited: August 08, 2013, 04:09:17 pm by illegaloperation »

We already have a thread about this. Alaska is too big and has far too much elbow space to ever be contested by either party. It's twice the size of Montana. You mean to tell me that either party is going to spend time and spend money traveling there for 3 Electoral votes? It doesn't have the terrain to become like Delaware or Vermont and the sizes aren't comparable. I see it becoming light red and purplish red if Democrats win by enough. We probably all agree that Alaska will never be a toss up. What else we should agree on is Alaska's trend must continue for this to happen.

Alaska may be large in area, but the heavily populated area is not all that spread out.

Also, Montana like Alaska has 3 EV, yet Obama campaigned there in 2008 anyway.

I do agree that if the Democratic nominee wins Alaska, he (or she) would have already gotten 270 EV without it anyway.

Logged
illegaloperation
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 783


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 08, 2013, 04:04:31 pm »
« Edited: August 08, 2013, 04:14:34 pm by illegaloperation »

There are a lot of reasons to think Alaska could have democratic potential, its just not ready yet though. For one thing, Obama did really well with Native Alaskans along with all the other minority groups and also did better with whites, all demographic trends that could be temporary. According to my ranking system (where I rank states from Solid, Strong, Weak) Alaska went from Solid to Strong from 2008 to 2012. Alaska has been solid for some time, and this trend needs to be kept an eye on in the coming years to be validated as a ongoing trend. Although we can assume influx from liberal states will tilt the state more democratic, its not a safe assumption. Just because they're coming from liberal states doesn't mean that they themselves are going to liberal.

I disagree with your concept that Alaska is the new Montana however. I did a recent thread on why Montana is probably moving to the right and you rejected it. Montana and Alaska were about the same in 2012 results but the have very different characteristics. Alaska could be moving in a liberal direction, but as I mentioned above its certainly not ready to be a swing state. Its very hard for an Alaska democrat to get >50% of the vote right now, and Mark Begich almost acheived that goal in 2008, we'll see if he can do it in 2014.

OK. So let us assume that Montana is indeed moving to the right and Alaska is moving to the left.

The big bonus is that Alaska is more elastic than Montana.

Won't that make Alaska more ripe for the picking (in Democratic's point of view) than Montana?
Logged
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,643
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 08, 2013, 05:36:02 pm »

We already have a thread about this. Alaska is too big and has far too much elbow space to ever be contested by either party. It's twice the size of Montana. You mean to tell me that either party is going to spend time and spend money traveling there for 3 Electoral votes? It doesn't have the terrain to become like Delaware or Vermont and the sizes aren't comparable. I see it becoming light red and purplish red if Democrats win by enough. We probably all agree that Alaska will never be a toss up. What else we should agree on is Alaska's trend must continue for this to happen.

Alaska may be large in area, but the heavily populated area is not all that spread out.

Also, Montana like Alaska has 3 EV, yet Obama campaigned there in 2008 anyway.

I do agree that if the Democratic nominee wins Alaska, he (or she) would have already gotten 270 EV without it anyway.



Obama campaigning in Montana is not like Alaska. 2008 was a Democratic year and he still lost by a few points. Like I said, purplish red when Democrats win and light red in other elections.
Logged
illegaloperation
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 783


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 08, 2013, 11:17:10 pm »

[Obama campaigning in Montana is not like Alaska. 2008 was a Democratic year and he still lost by a few points. Like I said, purplish red when Democrats win and light red in other elections.

I never said that Alaska will be the deciding state in the presidential election.

I said that it will be like what Montana is now. In other words, competitive at the state level (governor, attorney general, etc.), but only winnable for Democratic presidential candidates in very very favorable years.
Logged
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,643
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 08, 2013, 11:25:30 pm »

[Obama campaigning in Montana is not like Alaska. 2008 was a Democratic year and he still lost by a few points. Like I said, purplish red when Democrats win and light red in other elections.

I never said that Alaska will be the deciding state in the presidential election.

I said that it will be like what Montana is now. In other words, competitive at the state level (governor, attorney general, etc.), but only winnable for Democratic presidential candidates in very very favorable years.

Yes I agree unless the trend stops.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines