Trends for 2008
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:52:51 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)
  Trends for 2008
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Trends for 2008  (Read 4665 times)
zorkpolitics
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,188
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: March 20, 2005, 03:44:21 PM »
« edited: March 20, 2005, 03:46:20 PM by zorkpolitics »

Trends, of course, develop over time, so predicting the outcome in 2008 will depend not only on what data set one uses, but how it is interpreted.

In the current polarized and partisan political situation, only swing states matter.  Either they are in play and the election will be close (like 2000 and 2004), or one side has such a dominant position they don't matter (like 1996 or 1988).

2000 and 2008 provide an excellent data set since one candidate, Bush, acts as an internal control to identify trends.  Looking at the increase in Republican (Bush) vote in the two elections, and continuing that trend, predicts a near Republican sweep of the swing states.

Below is a list of swing states and their change in % vote for Bush from 2000 to 2004, with a prediction for 2008 based on the same percentage change.  This predicts an easy Republican win in 2008:

                Bush%     Bush%   Projected  Winner
                 2000   2004      2008
MN             45.5   47.6   49.7   R
MI             46.1   47.8   49.5   D
PA             46.3   48.4   50.4   R
OR             46.5   47.2   47.8   D
WI             47.6   49.3   51.0   R
NM             47.9   49.8   51.7   R
NH             48.1   48.9   49.7   R
IA              48.2   49.9   51.6   R
FL              48.9   52.0    55.1      R
NV             49.5   50.5   51.5   R
OH             50.0   50.8   51.6   R
CO             50.8   51.7   52.6   R


Alternatively, we can assume most of Bush's gains in 2004 were due to the incumbent effect.  The 5 incumbents re-elected since 1950 all increased their margin, from 2% (Eisenhower) to 17% (Nixon).  If so then the real trend is how the swing states changed relative to the national result.  One can predict the 2008 result by subtracting the 2.8% national gain Bush had from his 2004 result in the swing states.  This predicts an sweep of the swing states by the Democrat:

                        Projected
                 2000   2004    2008
MN             45.5   47.6   44.8   D
MI             46.1   47.8   45.0   D
PA             46.3   48.4   45.6   D
OR             46.5   47.2   44.4   D
WI             47.6   49.3   46.5   D
NM             47.9   49.8   47.0   D
NH             48.1   48.9   46.1   D
IA              48.2   49.9   47.1   D
FL              48.9    52.0    49.2   D
NV             49.5   50.5   47.7   D
OH             50.0   50.8   48.0   D
CO             50.8   51.7   48.9   D

Same data, 2 interpretations, which will come closest to the 2008 result?

Logged
True Democrat
true democrat
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,368
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.10, S: -2.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: March 20, 2005, 04:21:29 PM »

Trending Democrat:
Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico (2004 was exception), Florida (slightly), North Carolina (slightly), Virginia, Arizona, Washington, and New Hampshire.

Trending Republican: Pennsylvania (slightly), Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Arkansas, Missouri, Louisana, Texas, Oklahoma, and maybe a few others.
Logged
Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck
HockeyDude
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,376
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: March 21, 2005, 01:51:42 PM »

In 2008, I see the overall trend as follows. 

The Southwest continues to shift towards the Democrats.  Nevada and New Mexico, decidedly the 2 biggest swing states in the Western mix will be Democratic leans by 2008, New Mexico might even be slightly out of reach for the GOP.  Arizona has a strong conserative tradition, and will remain GOP lean.  Colorado will be the biggest swing state in the West, and in a close election, I expect the Democrats to actually pick up CO. 

The Northwest continues it's ever so slight shift towards the Dems.  Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Alaska, and the Dakotas are all so far out of reach, but I expect the Dems to pick up a couple meaningless points.  Oregon and Washington continue to lean Democratic, and by 2008, they are now solidly Democratic states in a close election. 

The South is a mix of the growing South and the declining, more rural South.  Louisiana, Tennessee, and Arkansas are now completely out of the Democrats reach.  That is replaced by Virginia, which I expect the Dems to start to make major moves in.  North Carolina shows a very small shift towards the Dems, but nothing they will want to throw too much money into.  Same with Texas.  Florida is still the major battleground.  2004 was a fluke and a result of a horrible effort in the state by the Kerry campaign and a wonderfully designed campaign by Karl Rove.  The influx of people into the state will still be majority Democratic, and I see it flipping sides in 2008. 

The Midwest shows a shift towards the GOP.  Few places in the Midwest are actually growing with the national average, and its starting to become more and more like the South-lite out there.   Illinois, Michigan, and Minnesota remain Democratic states.  Missouri becomes a solid GOP state, and Wisconsin and Iowa go to the GOP. 

The Northeast loses the 9/11 effect and shows it strongest support for the Democrats yet since the region first flipped in 92.  New Hampshire is a 5 pt Democratic victory.  Maine is a 10 pt.  The Dems score 60% in Mass., VT, RI, and NY and come very close in NJ, DE, CT, and MD.  The really only interesting state here is PA.  The Southwest of the state is trending GOP, the Southeast is trending Dem.  The Southeast is more in line with the major trend of bigger suburbs trending towards the Democrats, so I expect it to be bigger and the Dems actally win by 5 points in PA or more. 

MY 2008 GENERIC PREDICTION (in a completely even race)


Dems 288
GOP 250
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,445


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: March 22, 2005, 12:15:11 AM »

In 2008, I see the overall trend as follows. 

The Southwest continues to shift towards the Democrats.  Nevada and New Mexico, decidedly the 2 biggest swing states in the Western mix will be Democratic leans by 2008, New Mexico might even be slightly out of reach for the GOP.  Arizona has a strong conserative tradition, and will remain GOP lean.  Colorado will be the biggest swing state in the West, and in a close election, I expect the Democrats to actually pick up CO. 

The Northwest continues it's ever so slight shift towards the Dems.  Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Alaska, and the Dakotas are all so far out of reach, but I expect the Dems to pick up a couple meaningless points.  Oregon and Washington continue to lean Democratic, and by 2008, they are now solidly Democratic states in a close election. 

The South is a mix of the growing South and the declining, more rural South.  Louisiana, Tennessee, and Arkansas are now completely out of the Democrats reach.  That is replaced by Virginia, which I expect the Dems to start to make major moves in.  North Carolina shows a very small shift towards the Dems, but nothing they will want to throw too much money into.  Same with Texas.  Florida is still the major battleground.  2004 was a fluke and a result of a horrible effort in the state by the Kerry campaign and a wonderfully designed campaign by Karl Rove.  The influx of people into the state will still be majority Democratic, and I see it flipping sides in 2008. 

The Midwest shows a shift towards the GOP.  Few places in the Midwest are actually growing with the national average, and its starting to become more and more like the South-lite out there.   Illinois, Michigan, and Minnesota remain Democratic states.  Missouri becomes a solid GOP state, and Wisconsin and Iowa go to the GOP. 

The Northeast loses the 9/11 effect and shows it strongest support for the Democrats yet since the region first flipped in 92.  New Hampshire is a 5 pt Democratic victory.  Maine is a 10 pt.  The Dems score 60% in Mass., VT, RI, and NY and come very close in NJ, DE, CT, and MD.  The really only interesting state here is PA.  The Southwest of the state is trending GOP, the Southeast is trending Dem.  The Southeast is more in line with the major trend of bigger suburbs trending towards the Democrats, so I expect it to be bigger and the Dems actally win by 5 points in PA or more. 

MY 2008 GENERIC PREDICTION (in a completely even race)


Dems 288
GOP 250

Pretty much agree except I would say that Illinois trends more Dem as well as Ohio.  Wisc stays about the same vs Natl avaerage Minn moves back to lean Dem
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: March 22, 2005, 01:54:29 AM »

I like all this trend stuff as much as the next guy, but I have to bring in the old point here:

By the time most trends are noticed, they're already over.
Considering that some areas will vote on one issue over another if it is important (the economy in Ohio, for instance), it really depends how the next four years go, not the past two elections.
Logged
Josh/Devilman88
josh4bush
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,079
Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: March 22, 2005, 08:44:24 AM »



I think this will happen if a mod. Rep runs...
Logged
Jake
dubya2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,621
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: March 22, 2005, 03:21:36 PM »

Trends are meaningless.  Ohio was closer because of the economy, New Hampshire because of Kerry, Florida because of a good campaign, and Nevada because of Yucca Mtn.  A Southern Dem still can carry most of the outer South and a Northeast Republican can still carry PA, NJ, NH, and ME.  It depends on candidates and issues, not trends.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: March 22, 2005, 03:47:29 PM »

Trends are meaningless.  Ohio was closer because of the economy, New Hampshire because of Kerry, Florida because of a good campaign, and Nevada because of Yucca Mtn.  A Southern Dem still can carry most of the outer South and a Northeast Republican can still carry PA, NJ, NH, and ME.  It depends on candidates and issues, not trends.

I tend to agree.  There is also that one election in which many prior trends get smashed, or unpredicatably accelerated.  The last election of this type was 1992.  It usually corresponds to a major change in political conditions, such as the end of the cold war.
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,445


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: March 23, 2005, 01:49:27 AM »

Trends are meaningless.  Ohio was closer because of the economy, New Hampshire because of Kerry, Florida because of a good campaign, and Nevada because of Yucca Mtn.  A Southern Dem still can carry most of the outer South and a Northeast Republican can still carry PA, NJ, NH, and ME.  It depends on candidates and issues, not trends.

NH had little to do with Kerry.  The state has been trending Dem (vs the National average) for awhile now.  Maine I think is out of reah for the GOP (barring Collins, Snow or Rudy) & NJ is out of play barring Rudy
Logged
Shira
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,858


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: March 23, 2005, 04:45:16 PM »

Trends, of course, develop over time, so predicting the outcome in 2008 will depend not only on what data set one uses, but how it is interpreted.

In the current polarized and partisan political situation, only swing states matter.  Either they are in play and the election will be close (like 2000 and 2004), or one side has such a dominant position they don't matter (like 1996 or 1988).

2000 and 2008 provide an excellent data set since one candidate, Bush, acts as an internal control to identify trends.  Looking at the increase in Republican (Bush) vote in the two elections, and continuing that trend, predicts a near Republican sweep of the swing states.

Below is a list of swing states and their change in % vote for Bush from 2000 to 2004, with a prediction for 2008 based on the same percentage change.  This predicts an easy Republican win in 2008:

                Bush%     Bush%   Projected  Winner
                 2000   2004      2008
MN             45.5   47.6   49.7   R
MI             46.1   47.8   49.5   D
PA             46.3   48.4   50.4   R
OR             46.5   47.2   47.8   D
WI             47.6   49.3   51.0   R
NM             47.9   49.8   51.7   R
NH             48.1   48.9   49.7   R
IA              48.2   49.9   51.6   R
FL              48.9   52.0    55.1      R
NV             49.5   50.5   51.5   R
OH             50.0   50.8   51.6   R
CO             50.8   51.7   52.6   R


Alternatively, we can assume most of Bush's gains in 2004 were due to the incumbent effect.  The 5 incumbents re-elected since 1950 all increased their margin, from 2% (Eisenhower) to 17% (Nixon).  If so then the real trend is how the swing states changed relative to the national result.  One can predict the 2008 result by subtracting the 2.8% national gain Bush had from his 2004 result in the swing states.  This predicts an sweep of the swing states by the Democrat:

                        Projected
                 2000   2004    2008
MN             45.5   47.6   44.8   D
MI             46.1   47.8   45.0   D
PA             46.3   48.4   45.6   D
OR             46.5   47.2   44.4   D
WI             47.6   49.3   46.5   D
NM             47.9   49.8   47.0   D
NH             48.1   48.9   46.1   D
IA              48.2   49.9   47.1   D
FL              48.9    52.0    49.2   D
NV             49.5   50.5   47.7   D
OH             50.0   50.8   48.0   D
CO             50.8   51.7   48.9   D

Same data, 2 interpretations, which will come closest to the 2008 result?



Trend is an important indicator if it covers the last 4 or 5 elections. Try to look at the trends since 1988. The number a candidate got in a state should be compared to the national number.
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 #10 on: March 23, 2005, 04:46:32 PM »

The national number is meaningless.
Logged
Shira
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,858


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: March 23, 2005, 04:59:15 PM »

The term “Battleground State” does have a meaning only if the elections are close. If for, example, the winner in 2008 would get 54% nationally, then it is guaranteed that this person will win  all of the battleground states.
If you want to measure how conservative a state is, look at the number Bush got in that state and compare it to his national number 50.6%. I would say so: A state where Bush got by 2.5% above 50.6% is a safe state for the Republican candidate in 2008 (in close elections), while every state where he got less than 48% is guaranteed for the Democratic candidate (in close election certainly). All the states that in 2004 were in the 48%-53% range will be the swing states in 2008. The major and deciding swing states will again be OH, FL and PA.
As to VA, Bush got there 53.7% which is by 3% above his national number, but this number (the 3%) was 6.4% in 1988 and since then it is gradually and consistently shrinking. (migration from DC?). If the Democratic candidate will get 52% nationwide, then he/she will carry VA as well.
Logged
Jake
dubya2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,621
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: March 23, 2005, 05:19:31 PM »

Trends from '80, '84, '92, and '96 are worthless because 84 was a landslide year and the rest had strong third parties whose votes could've broken either way.  Trends in themselves are pretty worthless anyway.
Logged
True Democrat
true democrat
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,368
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.10, S: -2.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: March 23, 2005, 05:28:56 PM »

Trends from '80, '84, '92, and '96 are worthless because 84 was a landslide year and the rest had strong third parties whose votes could've broken either way.  Trends in themselves are pretty worthless anyway.

'88 is pretty worthless too because of the farm crisis.
Logged
Shira
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,858


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: March 23, 2005, 05:58:47 PM »

Trends from '80, '84, '92, and '96 are worthless because 84 was a landslide year and the rest had strong third parties whose votes could've broken either way.  Trends in themselves are pretty worthless anyway.

Third party or landslide victory doesn’t matter if you look into the really significant measure: The state number minus the national number.
Here are 2 examples as to GOP numbers:

In TX
1998 – 2.58%
1992 – 3.11%
1996 – 8.04%
2000 – 11.43%
2004 – 10.36%

In FL
1998 – 7.5%
1992 – 3.45%
1996 – 1.6%
2000 – 0.98%
2004 – 1.37%
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 #15 on: March 23, 2005, 06:04:02 PM »

The term “Battleground State” does have a meaning only if the elections are close.

Wrong. In 1964, Arizona was battleground state.
Logged
Jake
dubya2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,621
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: March 23, 2005, 06:05:53 PM »

No, not really.  States follow the national trend only in blowout elections.  Trends are worthless, as I've been saying, because they easily change.  A Democrat from Florida will carry Florida, just like a Democrat from Mississippi or a Republican from New Jersey would carry their states.  Trends mean nothing when compared to things like outside events, candidates, issues, etc.
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 #17 on: March 25, 2005, 12:53:32 PM »

Sometimes one can see a clear trend and then it's valuable. I think people some times over-estimate the speed of trends. There is no way for instance that a generic Northeastern Democrat takes Virginia, North Carolina or Arizona in the next election. The key battlegrounds remain the same: Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio. After that comes Wisconsin, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico. I don't expect the candidates to make any effort at any other states for various reasons.

So that leaves the Dem candidate with the Kerry states minus PA and WI=221 EVs and the Rep candidate with the Bush states minus FL, OH, IA, CO, NV and NM=213 EVs.
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,445


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: March 26, 2005, 01:46:58 AM »

Sometimes one can see a clear trend and then it's valuable. I think people some times over-estimate the speed of trends. There is no way for instance that a generic Northeastern Democrat takes Virginia, North Carolina or Arizona in the next election. The key battlegrounds remain the same: Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio. After that comes Wisconsin, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico. I don't expect the candidates to make any effort at any other states for various reasons.

So that leaves the Dem candidate with the Kerry states minus PA and WI=221 EVs and the Rep candidate with the Bush states minus FL, OH, IA, CO, NV and NM=213 EVs.


I thinK Colorado would be in batch 1 of the battleground states in 08.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: March 26, 2005, 12:51:33 PM »
« Edited: March 26, 2005, 12:53:31 PM by Senator Supersoulty »

Trends from '80, '84, '92, and '96 are worthless because 84 was a landslide year and the rest had strong third parties whose votes could've broken either way.  Trends in themselves are pretty worthless anyway.

'88 is pretty worthless too because of the farm crisis.

Agreed.  Under nirmal conditions Wisconsin, Iowa and possibly Minnesota would have gone Bush.

But it is worth noting that rural famr communities in those states still trend Democrat, probably because of that crisis.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: March 26, 2005, 12:57:30 PM »

Sometimes one can see a clear trend and then it's valuable. I think people some times over-estimate the speed of trends. There is no way for instance that a generic Northeastern Democrat takes Virginia, North Carolina or Arizona in the next election. The key battlegrounds remain the same: Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio. After that comes Wisconsin, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico. I don't expect the candidates to make any effort at any other states for various reasons.

So that leaves the Dem candidate with the Kerry states minus PA and WI=221 EVs and the Rep candidate with the Bush states minus FL, OH, IA, CO, NV and NM=213 EVs.

Why is everyone ignoring Michigan?  I think it is in the key battleground group.  It was a 51-48 state.  And Bush didn't even show up with his best stuff here.
Logged
TeePee4Prez
Flyers2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,480


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: March 31, 2005, 03:34:41 PM »

Sometimes one can see a clear trend and then it's valuable. I think people some times over-estimate the speed of trends. There is no way for instance that a generic Northeastern Democrat takes Virginia, North Carolina or Arizona in the next election. The key battlegrounds remain the same: Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio. After that comes Wisconsin, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico. I don't expect the candidates to make any effort at any other states for various reasons.

So that leaves the Dem candidate with the Kerry states minus PA and WI=221 EVs and the Rep candidate with the Bush states minus FL, OH, IA, CO, NV and NM=213 EVs.

Why is everyone ignoring Michigan?  I think it is in the key battleground group.  It was a 51-48 state.  And Bush didn't even show up with his best stuff here.

Well, Bush showed up with practically his second home here in PA AND STILL LOST! HA and you said Bush was gonna win because of the "Dead Democrat" theorerm.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: March 31, 2005, 05:32:40 PM »

Sometimes one can see a clear trend and then it's valuable. I think people some times over-estimate the speed of trends. There is no way for instance that a generic Northeastern Democrat takes Virginia, North Carolina or Arizona in the next election. The key battlegrounds remain the same: Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio. After that comes Wisconsin, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico. I don't expect the candidates to make any effort at any other states for various reasons.

So that leaves the Dem candidate with the Kerry states minus PA and WI=221 EVs and the Rep candidate with the Bush states minus FL, OH, IA, CO, NV and NM=213 EVs.

Why is everyone ignoring Michigan?  I think it is in the key battleground group.  It was a 51-48 state.  And Bush didn't even show up with his best stuff here.

Well, Bush showed up with practically his second home here in PA AND STILL LOST! HA and you said Bush was gonna win because of the "Dead Democrat" theorerm.

I remember seeing a post of your's from awhile back showing Kerry winning PA by 10 points so you're predictions aren't that great either.
Logged
Dave from Michigan
9iron768
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,298
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: March 31, 2005, 05:54:56 PM »

Sometimes one can see a clear trend and then it's valuable. I think people some times over-estimate the speed of trends. There is no way for instance that a generic Northeastern Democrat takes Virginia, North Carolina or Arizona in the next election. The key battlegrounds remain the same: Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio. After that comes Wisconsin, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico. I don't expect the candidates to make any effort at any other states for various reasons.

So that leaves the Dem candidate with the Kerry states minus PA and WI=221 EVs and the Rep candidate with the Bush states minus FL, OH, IA, CO, NV and NM=213 EVs.

Why is everyone ignoring Michigan?  I think it is in the key battleground group.  It was a 51-48 state.  And Bush didn't even show up with his best stuff here.


I think Michigan will be unlikely to go republican in 2008 (of course unless the republican is from or near michigan, moderate or wins in a landslide) Michigan is a tricky state, for the republicans to win they need to do well in the western/northern part of the state and Oakland county and Macomb county and hope Detroit doesn't show up.
Oakland county is not nearly as republican as it use to be, it's gone democrat in the last 3 elections.  Although Macomb has moved the other way Bush won it in 04 lost it in 00.
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 0.067 seconds with 11 queries.