A fair assumption (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 25, 2024, 11:24:12 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: 100% pro-life no matter what)
  A fair assumption (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: A fair assumption  (Read 3440 times)
phk
phknrocket1k
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,906


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

« on: March 24, 2005, 12:27:33 AM »

Would it be fair to say...

Democrats do best in presidential elections in their home state.

Only on how much local pride the candidate has.
Logged
phk
phknrocket1k
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,906


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

« Reply #1 on: March 26, 2005, 07:58:55 PM »

well yeah, I mean he is the exception.  But consider this: Clinton did best in 1992 in Arkansas.  Georgia was Carter's biggest state.  Mondale only won his home state.  Kerry did best in his home state. 
Bob Dole did best in Utah, as did George W. Bush.  I think Reagan also did, in at least one election.

It only depends on how popular they are there.
Logged
phk
phknrocket1k
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,906


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

« Reply #2 on: March 26, 2005, 08:55:35 PM »
« Edited: March 26, 2005, 08:59:02 PM by Marxism-Leninism-Maoism »

Gore had spent eight years as VP in which he didn’t make any noticable effort to retain his Tennesseeness.  I wouldn’t consider Tennessee his home state any more than I would consider New York to be Hillary’s home state.

Well, at least Gore had slept in something other than a hotel within the state before he ran for president.  But I see your point.  He really didn't even grow up there, but officially that was his home state (nobody is going to use DC).

My opinion is that the Lewinsky scandal, and Gore's over-the-top defense of Clinton with respect to that scandal, cost Gore the southern states like Tennessee and Arkansas that Clinton had won in 1996.  He lost his southern appeal by backing Clinton's adultery.  At least that's my theory on why those states flipped.

Gun Control and wedge-issues. Southerners commit adultery more often than thier Northern counterparts.

By 2000 most people had moved on.
Logged
phk
phknrocket1k
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,906


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

« Reply #3 on: March 27, 2005, 01:44:31 PM »

Southerners commit adultery more often than thier Northern counterparts.


You may be right about that, but they still a lot less likely to vote for someone who does it, or supports it.  I believe that by 2000, enough southerners had not moved on from the Lewinsky thing to cost Gore the electoral votes of all the southern states that had voted for Clinton.  There was no other objective reason for those states to flip from 1996 to 2000.

Perot played a factor.  

In reality, Clinton only had a shot at 4 Southern states.

LA, AR(he is from there), [WV, FL] <-- these states aren't "sufficiently" Southern either.

Logged
Pages: [1]  
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 0.019 seconds with 12 queries.